Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saif Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
1 MCRC-3816-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3816 of 2025
ARMAN MOHAMMAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.M. Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1386 of 2025
SAIF ALI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.M. Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
These are the repeat applications under Section 483 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973); third application filed on behalf of applicant Arman
Mohammad (M.Cr.C. No.3816 of 2025) and second application filed on
behalf of applicant Saif Ali (M.Cr.C. No.1386 of 2025) for grant of
regular bail in relation to FIR No.613/2022 dated 17.11.2022, registered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
2 MCRC-3816-2025
at Police Station Hanumana, District Rewa (M.P.) for commission of
offence under Sections 8, 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and Section 5/13 of the M.P. Drugs (Control) Act,
1949. Applicants are in detention since 17.11.2022.
2. Earlier two bail applications of applicant Arman Mohammed
were dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide orders dated
01.07.2023 & 21.12.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19287 of 2023 &
M.Cr.C. No.35246 of 2023 respectively. First bail application of
applicant Saif Ali was dismissed on merit vide order dated 05.02.2024
passed in M.Cr.C. No.4244 of 2024.
3 As per the prosecution case, on 17.11.2022, police Hanumana
received secret information that a huge quantity of cough syrup
(contraband) is being brought from Uttar Pradesh side through one white
colour Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MP-17-CB-2112. The
information was recorded in the General Diary. After following the due
procedure contemplated under various provisions of the NDPS Act,
police party reached on the road and intercepted the white colour Bolero
vehicle bearing registration No. MP-17-CB-2112; in which, four persons
were travelling. The person sitting on the driver seat introduced himself
as Sarfraj Ansari S/o Shri Sameed Mohammad Ahmad R/o Village
Deora, Police Station Shahpur, District Rewa. The person sitting by the
side of the driver seat introduced himself Saif Ali S/o Mohd. Ansari R/o
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
3 MCRC-3816-2025
Deora, Police Station Shahpur, District Rewa. Persons sitting on back
seat introduced themselves as Arman Mohd. R/o Deora, Police Station
Shahpur, District Rewa and Arif Mohd. R/o Ghureta, Police Station
Mauganj, District Rewa. They were made understand with their right to
be searched before the Magistrate or some Gazetted Officer, but they all
agreed to give search to A.S.I. Pushpraj Singh. After individual search of
member of said party, the vehicle was searched and in it, seven cartoons
of Onerex Cough Syrup (having codeine phosphate) were seized i.e. in
total; 800 bottles of cough syrup (100 ml. each) were seized. FIR was
registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted
that applicants are in detention since 17.11.2022. They have not
committed any office. They are innocent. They have falsely been
implicated in the case. Nothing has been seized from their possession. It
is further contended that applicant/accused Saif Ali whose bail
application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 05.02.2024 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.4244 of 2024 by this Court had approached the Supreme
Court by filing regular bail and Hon'ble the Supreme Court by order
dated 03.04.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s).4433/2024 [Saif Ali Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ] had
directed the Special Judge, Rewa to conclude the trial in a time-bound
manner expeditiously i.e. within a period of six months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of the order and it observed that in case, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
4 MCRC-3816-2025
trial is not concluded within the time stipulated for some unforeseen
reasons, the petitioner/accused shall be at liberty to revive the prayer for
bail before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that trial of the case
could not be concluded within the aforesaid period; therefore, placing
reliance on the aforementioned order and the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).-915
of 2023 [Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)], it is
submitted that on the ground of undue delay in trial, bail can be granted
as same cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the
imperative of Section 436-A which is applicable to offences under the
NDPS Act too. On the aforesaid pretext, it is prayed that applicants may
be released on bail, pending the trial.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants and has urged that a huge
cache (commercial quantity) of contraband i.e. Onerex Cough Syrup
having codeine phosphate has been seized from the conscious possession
of the applicants/accused and they were actively involved in commission
of offence. It is further submitted that to ensure public order and to
prevent recurrence of serious crimes like drug dealing, the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act have to be taken into consideration as
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act restrict grant of bail in cases of
commercial quantity. Therefore, it is prayed that applicants may not be
released on bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
5 MCRC-3816-2025
6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the material available on record.
7. This Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.1386 of 2025 called the status report of the trial from the concerned
Trial Court. As per the status report dated 21.01.2025 received from
Special Judge (NDPS Act) Rewa, through the Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Rewa (MP), it is apparent that incompliance of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court directions vide order dated 03.04.2024 in SLP (Crl.)
No(s).-4433/2024, prosecution as well as defence both have closed its
evidence before the Trial Court and case is fixed for final arguments for
31.01.2025. Thus, it is apparent that learned Trial Court has concluded
the trial incompliance of directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and
only judgment in the case has to be passed after hearing final arguments
of the parties.
8. In the case in hand, the applicants are in custody since
17.11.2022 i.e. more than a period of 26 months. In the case of Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).-915 of 2023 [Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)], bail was granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
on the ground of undue delay in trial as accused in that case was in jail
for the last seven years & four months and out of 64 witnesses cited by
the prosecution, only 30 witnesses were examined and 34 more witnesses
had still to be remained examined and in those circumstances, Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
6 MCRC-3816-2025
the Supreme Court had granted the bail.
9. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad , reported
in (2001) 7 SCC 673, Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering the
scope of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the light of schemes of the Act
has observed as under:-
"A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in
the mind of the court that a person accused of an
offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five
years or more, shall generally be not released on bail.
Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception
under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For
granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the
record produced before it, be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the offences with which he is charged and
further that he is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions
for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the
limitations provided under the Code of Criminal
Procedure or any other law for the time being in force
regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the
matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
7 MCRC-3816-2025
10. In the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit
Aggarwal, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374, a three judges Bench of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"The length of the period of his custody or the fact that
the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has
commenced, are by themselves not considerations that
can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief
to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."
11. In the case in hand, it cannot be over-looked that a huge
cache of cough-syrup has been seized from the conscious possession of
the applicants. As per the status report received from the Trial Court, trial
has already been concluded and after hearing final arguments, only
judgment has to be delivered. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its order has
nowhere directed to the High Court or the Trial Court to necessarily
grant the bail to the applicants, if trial is not concluded within a period of
six months; though, the trial has been concluded.
12. It has been the consistent and persistent view of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the cases under the NDPS Act where the offence is
punishable with minimum sentence ten years; the accused shall generally
be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an
exception. While considering the application for bail, the Court has to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4920
8 MCRC-3816-2025
bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are
mandatory in nature.
13. In view of the above and having taken into consideration all
the facts & circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence and
the fact that trial has already been concluded and case is fixed for final
arguments but without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I
am of the view that no case for grant of bail is made out.
14. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 (Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, 1973) for grant of regular bail
filed on behalf of applicants - Arman Mohammad and Saif Ali stand
dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
