Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bholaram @ Bhola Pandit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12451
1 MCRC-12391-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12391 of 2025
BHOLARAM @ BHOLA PANDIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ram Kishor Sharma - Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Saket Udainiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The applicant has filed the second bail application under Section 483
of BNSS, 2023/439 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail in connection
with Crime No.218/2024 registered at Police Station Malanpur, District
Bhind (M.P.) for the alleged commission of offence under Section 8/20 of
NDPS Act.
2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application
filed by him bearing M.Cr.C.No.3206 of 2025 was permitted to be
withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after filing of the charge-sheet.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that now the charge-sheet in the
matter has been filed and there is no seizure in the matter from the applicant.
The applicant has been implicated as accused on the basis of memorandum
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused. He has no criminal
past. No further investigation is required to be done and accordingly, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12451
2 MCRC-12391-2025
prays for grant of regular bail. In support of his contentions, he relies upon
the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal
No.174/2009 (Raj Kumar Hariram Vs. State of Gujarat and Another) and the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1647/2007 (Raju Premji Vs. Customs NER Shillong Unit), to buttress his
contention that in the aforesaid cases, the conviction of the appellants therein
under the provisions of the NDPS Act 1985 based upon the memorandum of
the co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was set aside.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
opposes the bail application and submits that the quantity of NDPS
contraband substance (Ganja) seized in the instant case is 141.455 kg which
is far beyond the commercial quantity and during the course of investigation,
on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused, it has come on record
that the applicant herein has been actively involved in the offence in question
and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. He places reliance
on the following orders/judgments:-
(I) Order dated 21.10.2022 passed in Criminal appeal No(s).1841-
1842 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No (s).5505-5506 of 2022) case
of Union of India (NCB) Etc. v. Khalil Uddin Etc.;
(II) Judgment dated 28.03.2023 passed in Criminal appeal No(s).____
of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.2351 of 2023) case of Union of
India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu; and
(III) Order dated 13.09.2024 passed by this Court at Indore in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.37588 of 2024 case of Baburam v. Union
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12451
3 MCRC-12391-2025
of India.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the bar as
contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, learned counsel
prays for dismissal of the bail application.
6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties, perused
the case diary and the material available on record.
7. In the instant case, the prosecution has recorded the memorandum of
accused Kartar Singh on 22.12.2024 wherein he stated that out of the total
contraband article, it was already settled to transfer two packets to the
present applicant at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per kg. However, since the article
were seized, he could not give the contraband substance to the present
applicant. He further states that he used to talk with the present applicant on
Mobile Number 9755322579.
8. Similarly, memorandum of the co-accused Shyam Lal was recorded
by the prosecution on 22.12.2024 who has specifically stated that Kartar used
to sell the contraband substance to the present applicant who in turn used to
transmit the same to the other co-accused.
9. It is thus clearly discernable from the material on record that the
applicant was in touch with the other co-accused for the transaction of Ganja
in question.
10. A coordinate bench of this Court taking into consideration the
order passed by the Apex Court in case of Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil
Uddin (supra) in which the Supreme Court has taken into account the
provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and earlier decisions rendered by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12451
4 MCRC-12391-2025
the Supreme Court in case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra)
and in case of State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pappulabid Ahmad Arimutta
(supra) has dismissed the bail application; and this order has been affirmed
vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to
Petition (Criminal) Diary No (s).49827 of 2024 (Arising out of impugned
final judgment and order dated 13.09.2024 in MCRC No.37588 of 2024
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore) in case of Baburam
v. Union of India. In case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) it
has been held that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
are inadmissible in trial, but it cannot be inferred that these statements cannot
be looked into at the time of deciding bail application in consonance with
other relevant material available on record.
11. In the aforesaid attending facts and circumstances of this case,
along with the rigor as contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
12. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
