Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paras Basod @ Chota Paras vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13231
1 MCRC-18468-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 17th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18468 of 2025
PARAS BASOD @ CHOTA PARAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Jayesh Yadav - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
2. This first bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed
by the applicant Paras Basod for grant of regular bail, who has been arrested
on 17.10.2024 in connection with Crime No.103/2024, date (not mentioned)
registered at Police Station Sarafa, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of
offences under Section 8, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act 1985.
3. As per prosecution story, on 16.10.2024, 506 grams of MD drugs is
said to have been recovered from the back seat Creta Car bearing
Registration No.MP 09 WE 6316 in which the present applicant along with
co-accused was travelling. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13231
2 MCRC-18468-2025
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The said
substance has been seized from the car, more precisely from the back seat of
the car, therefore no personal search of the present applicant was conducted
by the concerned officer at the place of incident. It is further submitted that
there is no evidence on record to corroborate the fact that the contraband was
seized from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant and to
further implicate the applicant under section 22 of NDPS Act. Counsel also
submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be a
conscious possession. There was an inordinate delay caused at the instance
of the investigating officer to produce the seized contraband before the
Learned Magistrate. It appears from the facts in hand, the substance was
seized on 17.10.2024 and later after an efflux of 19 days it was produced
before the Learned magistrate on 05.11.2024. No reasonable explanation for
the delay has been given by the prosecution, coupled with the fact that there
is a high chance of tampering the seized substance and it cannot be ruled out.
Such a delay caused by the investigating officer further proves to be fatal for
the case of prosecution.
5. Learned counsel referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohanial (2016) 3 SCC 379 decided
on 28.01.2016 submitted that the application to the Magistrate for sampling
has to be moved immediately after seizure. In the present case, the
application under section 52A for drawing of sample was made after 19 days.
The above-act clearly amounts to non-compliance of the section 52-A of
NDPS Act. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13231
3 MCRC-18468-2025
Court in the case of "Yousuf Alias Asif Vs. State" (Cri. Appeal No.3191 of
2023) and "Simranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Cri. Appeal
No.1443/2023)" wherein it has been held that, 'a holistic reading of Section
52-A makes is abundantly clear that, it is the procedure prescribed under
Section 52-A, which creates primary evidence for consideration by the
Learned Trial Court in NDPS case, and non-compliance of the same has
been held to be fatal in such cases. Counsel also placed reliance upon the
judgment dated 18.05.2023 of the High Court of Delhi in the case of
"Kashif vs. NCB " in support of his arguments. Thus, in the present matter,
the prosecution has also failed to make due compliance of Section 52-A of
NDPS Act. As a result of which, the entire search and seizure is vitiated,
which also calls for grant of bail to the present applicant. The applicant is in
custody since 17.10.2024. Conclusion of trial will take considerable long
time. Under these circumstances, counsel prays for grant of bail to the
applicant.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed
the application and prays for its rejection by submitting that .
6 . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. After considering all the aspects and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, rival submissions of the counsel
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13231
4 MCRC-18468-2025
sumathi
