Madhya Pradesh High Court
Majhar Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30315
1 WP-28467-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28467 of 2025
MAJHAR KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner has filed this present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2025
passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "PIT NDPS ACT"), whereby the he has been
ordered to detained in the Central Jail, Bhopal for the period of six months.
2. Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the order of detention has been passed only on account of three
criminal cases registered and pending against this petitioner. Otherwise,
there is no other satisfaction which has been recorded by the detaining
authority while passing the order of detention. It is submitted that under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30315
2 WP-28467-2025
Section 3(1) of PIT NDPS ACT, it is mandatory for authority to record its
satisfaction for detaining any person in the custody without trial. It is further
submitted before passing the order of detention, the petitioner had already
been granted bail by the competent court in all the three criminal cases and
this fact has not been considered by the respondent No.2 while passing the
order of detention. To buttress these contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance on a judgment passed the Apex Court in the case of
Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura & Ors. passed in S.L.P.
(Criminal) No.6683 of 2022.
3. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State submits that had the petitioner been in jail, there would
have been no occasion for passing the order of detention. After release on the
bail in all the three cases, the petitioner was found in possession and sale of
narcotics substances, hence there is no control on his criminal activities. It is
submitted that the petitioner normally operates through carrier and agents
hence few cases could have been registered against him. The authorities have
recorded the satisfaction which is not liable to be interfered with by this
Court in this writ petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner has already
undergone almost six months period. Hence, the petition has virtually
rendered infructuous.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. It is correct that out of six months, the petitioner has undergone
more than five months. Now the period of detention is going to expire on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30315
3 WP-28467-2025
31.10.2025, therefore, the petitioner has undergone almost the entire period
of detention. Admittedly, three criminal cases related to the NDPS Act are
registered against him, namely: (1.) Crime No.685/2018 at P.S.
Khajrana under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, (2.) Crime No.314/2020
at P.S. Kanadiya under Section 8/27 of the NDPS Act; and (3.) Crime
No.204/2024 at P.S. Malharganj under Section 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The learned authority has rightly observed that in crime related to narcotic
substances, normally the big dealers or accused persons do not come into the
picture, as they operate through small drivers, conductors, agents and
carriers, so there is less chance to implicate them without concrete evidence.
T h e modus operandi of the main accused in crimes related to narcotic
substance is like that they works behind the curtains, therefore, if the
authorities have had a satisfaction that the petitioner is systematically
involved in dealing with the narcotic substance, then the same cannot be
interfered in the writ petition.
5. In view of above, petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
