Harishankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36901




                                                               1                        MCRC-57286-2025
                            IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
                                                 ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57286 of 2025
                                                        HARISHANKAR
                                                            Versus
                                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                                  Shri Abhay Saraswat - Advocate for the applicant .

                                  Shri Apoorv Joshi GA for the State.

                                                               ORDER

1. This second application has been filed by applicant under 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 31/2018 registered at Police Station- Barkhedakala, District- Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section(s) 8/18 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant is in judicial custody since 02/07/2025. Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 26/09/2025 passed in MCRC no. 33899/ 2025 with a liberty to renew the

prayer after examination of witnesses regarding the recording of information of co-accused in police custody. Thereafter, the independent witnesses namely, Bapulal [PW-1) and Pyarsingh [PW-2] have been examined before the trial Court.

2. Heard the arguments.

3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36901

2 MCRC-57286-2025 case diary and the relevant material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence merely on the basis of information of co-accused in police custody, which is not admissible in view of the laid down in the cases of Deepak Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2020) 2 SCC (Cri.) and Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. The statement of independent witnesses of information memo namely, Bapulal [PW-1] and Pyarsingh [PW-2] have been examined and they did not supported the prosecution with regard to information given by co-accused in

police custody. No incriminating material, much less, narcotic contraband

was seized at the instance of the applicant. There is no money trail and call detail report to substantiate the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. There is no likelihood of tampering with remaining evidence by the applicant. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and his dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case dairy, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.

6. As per the accusation, Parmanand was apprehended while carrying narcotic contraband opium, total quantity 4 kg. Parmanand informed that he had procured the narcotic contraband from Harishankar

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36901

3 MCRC-57286-2025

(applicant) and transporting it for delivery to Chainsingh. Accordingly, Chainsingh was arrested. The applicant could not arrested as he was absconding. The final report was submitted against Parmanand and Chainsingh, pending the investigation against the applicant. Chainsingh was acquitted vide judgment dated 21/06/2022 passed in Spl/NDPS/5 OF 2018. However, Parmanand was convicted. During investigation, no call detail report or money trail was found to substantiate the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. The fact remains that the narcotic contraband was not seized from the direct and immediate possession of the applicant. In view of above facts, the interdict contained under section 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act would not apply in the present matter. The veracity of the prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence would be determined after evidence in the trial.

7. As informed, applicant is aged 54 years. He is agriculturist by profession. He has family responsibilities. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any criminal antecedent, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses or involving in similar offence by the applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present application only.

8. Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36901

4 MCRC-57286-2025 the case, in the light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on the merits, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application is allowed.

9 . Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Harishankar shall be

released on bail in connection with Crime, as mentioned in first paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions : (For convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-

(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court;

(1) आवेदक संबंिधत यायालय के िनदशानुसार सुनवाई क येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहे गा । (2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature; (2) आवेदक समान कृ ित का केाई अपराध नह ं करे गा या उसम स मिलत नह ं होगा । (3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;

(3) आवेदक करण के त य से प रिचत कसी य को य या अ य प से लोभन, धमक या वचन नह ं दे गा, जससे ऐसा य ऐसे त य को यायालय या पुिलस अिधकार को कट करने से िनवा रत हो (4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;

(4) आवदे क य या अ य प से सा य के साथ छे डछाड करने का या सा ी या सा य को बहलाने-फुसलाने, दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह ं करे गा । (5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C./346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;

(5) वचारण के दौरान, उप थत गवाह से पर ण के संबंध म आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं . .सं./ ३४६ भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करे गा ।

10. This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the trial Court may consider, on merit, cancellation of bail without any impediment of this

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36901

5 MCRC-57286-2025 order.

11. The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he/she had explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.

C.C. as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE

amol