[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64193
1 MCRC-48684-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48684 of 2025
DEVENDRA TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating
to FIR/Crime No.45/2025 registered at Police Station-Jatara, District-
Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8/18 and 27A of
NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2025. First bail application
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
no.13892/2025 and the second bail application of the applicant was
dismissed on 13.10.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.13892 of 2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant who has submitted that
the applicant was arrested for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of
the NDPS Act for cultivating of opium poppy but, in the remand form,
nowhere it has been mentioned that the case of Section 27-A of NDPS Act is
made out, except in the page no.58 that was remand form for period of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64193
2 MCRC-48684-2025
24.07.2025 to 06.08.2025 and that was submitted after filing of the
application of the applicant for the compulsive bail and this fact has not been
mentioned in any remand paper.
3. The police authorities have not taken permission of the trial Court
to enhance the offence under Section 27-A of NDPS Act whereas, it was
mandatory for them to obtain the permission of the competent Court before
enhancing the offence.
4. After completion of 90 days, under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act, it
was mandatory for the police authorities to seek the extension of time with
the report of the Public Prosecutor and has submitted that all this was not
done in the case and the compulsive bail application was dismissed by the
trial Court stating that offence punishable under Section 27-A of the NDPS
Act is made out and for that the limitation period is of 180 days.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that after
completion of 90 days, the prosecution agency was bound to issue notice to
the applicant and investigation agency was bound to submit the application
and presence of the applicant was necessary when the application for the
extension of time was heard.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in anticipatory bail
application of co-accused Ranu passed in M.Cr.C. No.18085 of 2025 on
09.05.2025, nowhere, it was disclosed that offence punishable under Section
27-A of the NDPS Act is made out. The provision of Section 187 of BNSS
has not been complied with.
7. He has further submitted that the judgment passed in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64193
3 MCRC-48684-2025
Kalla Mallah Vs. State of M.P. by this Court in Cr.R. No.1933/2021 dated
14.12.2022 and Raja Bhaiya Vs. State of M.P. in Cr.R. No.1813/2020, in the
case of cultivation of opium poppy, the applicant may be punished only for
the period of 10 years and not more than that, and the quantity of crop has no
relevance and the case cannot be classified in the category of small quantity,
medium quantity and commercial quantity and on the basis of all these
points, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant is
entitled for bail.
8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and
also filed an I.A. 26752/2025 for modification in the order dated 13.10.2025.
9. Heard the parties perused the case diary.
10. As per the case diary, S.I. N.S. Thakur of Police Station-Jatara,
District-Tikamgarh made a raid on 04.03.2025 at village Muhara and it was
found that in the field of Asharam, opium poppy plants were cultivated. The
opium poppy plants were uprooted and 4,100 kilogram green crop was
found and when Asharam Kushwaha was interrogated, he disclosed that he
along with Devendra Tiwari were cultivating the opium poppy with the
maximum benefit and the land belongs to Devendra and Asharam Kushwaha.
The Investigation Officer obtained the report from Area Patwari Ajay
Sutrakar, who inspected the spot and disclosed that the opium poppy plants
were cultivated in survey No.2114 and survey No.2137/2/1/1 that belong to
Asharam Kushwaha and Devendra Tiwari respectively.
11. During investigation, it was also found that Ranu Tiwari asked the
applicant to cultivate the opium poppy and he will look after the marketing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64193
4 MCRC-48684-2025
of that product and on that, he was ready to cultivate and after Devuthani
Ekadashi, Ranu Tiwari had supplied him the seeds of opium poppy and told
him that this is a high quality seeds and on that he cultivated the crop. It was
obligation of Asharam to take care of irrigation and fertilizer. Ranu provided
him Rs.2000/- for purchasing the fertilizer and Ranu Tiwari, Asharam and
Devendra Tiwari were looking after the crop. It was an agreement that they
will divide the product in equal shares and this memorandum was recorded
on 06.03.2025, in which all these factors were disclosed. Thus, it is clear that
Ranu Tiwari has financed for illegal traffic in relation to Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances is defined in sub clauses (i) and (ii) of clauses (viii)
(v) of Section 2 of NDPS Act in which cultivating the opium poppy also
come in that purview and as per Section 27A of NDPS Act, the person
indulges in financing, directly or indirectly, any of the activities specified in
sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (viii) of Section 2 of NDPS is punishable
which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which may
extend to two lakh rupees. On that basis, learned counsel has submitted that
as per Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, in respect of Section 27A of NDPS Act,
the remand period may extend to 180 days.
12. Looking to these aspects that one of the co-accused is absconding
and the trial Court has not committed any error, hence, the third bail
application of the applicant is dismissed.
13. I.A. No.26752/2025 is also allowed that in the order dated
13.10.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.36737/2025 in para No.7, the applicant is
also entitled be read as "the applicant is also not entitled".
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64193
5 MCRC-48684-2025
14. A copy of this order be kept in the M.Cr.C. No.36737/2025.
15. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
