[Cites 35, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lavish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9010
1 MCRC-11542-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11542 of 2026
LAVISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Saraswat - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Viraj Godha - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. This third application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483
of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 514 of 2024
registered at Police Station - Agar, District - Agar Malwa (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Sections 8/20, and 29 of NDPS Act. Applicant is in judicial
custody since 15.11.2024.
2. His first application for grant of bail was dismissed as withdraw vide
order dated 04.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 24807 of 2025. Second application
for grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.11.2025 passed
in M.Cr.C. No.48788 of 2025 thereafter, seizure witnesses Pawan (PW1) and
Anand (PW2) have been examined.
3. Heard the argument.
4. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary
and the relevant material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned
in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9010
2 MCRC-11542-2026
offence merely on suspicion. The narcotic contraband seized included the leaves,
stems and other plants, therefore it weighed 21 kgs, slightly above the minimum
commercial quantity. T h e independent seizure witnesses Pawan (PW1) and
Anand (PW2) did not support the prosecution. There is no likelihood of tampering
with the remaining evidence by the applicant. The trial would take time to
conclude. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and the dependent
family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial. Learned counsel further
submits that the prolonged custody is anathema to the fundamental right of life and
liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Long custody
without trial infringes the right to fair and speedy trial.
6 Further, to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant
referred to the orders of the Supreme Court in the matters of Ankur Chaudhary Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.)
No.4648/2024 decided on 28.05.2024; Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @
Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[2024 INSC 534]; order dated 25.01.2023,
passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No(s).6690/2022 (Dheeraj
Kumar Shukla Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh); order dated 04.04.2025 passed in
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No.1303/2025 (Mohit Chaturvedi
Vs. State of M.P.); order dated 08.11.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave
to Appeal(Crl.) No(s)12225/202 4 (MD. Tajiur Rahaman @ Tajiur Rahaman Vs.
The State of West Bengal) ; order dated 26.05.2025 passed in Petition(s) for
SLP(Crl.) No(s) 7072/2025 (Mijanul Islam @ Laltu & Anr. Vs. State of West
Bengal); order dtd. 17.03.2025, passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal(Crl.) No(s).1737/2025 (Santosh Sahoo @ Santosh Saho Vs. The Union of
India); order dated 03.09.2024, passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal(Crl.) No(s) 8557/2024 (Sabat Mehtab Khan Vs. The State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9010
3 MCRC-11542-2026
Maharashtra); order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Petition(s) for SPL
No(s)16671/2024 (Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit Vs. State of Rajasthan); order dtd.
17.03.2025 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl)
No(s).1706/2025 (Omprakash Vs. The State of Gujarat); order dtd. 12.11.2024
passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl) No(s)8353/2024 (Salimbhai
Hamjibhai Vagehela Vs. The State of Gujarat); order dated 20.02.2025, passed
in Cri. A. No.859/2025(arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl)
No.17042/2024 (Anandbhai Rajendrabhai Vaniya Vs. The State of Gujarat), order
dtd. 09.02.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl) No(s)
16726/2023 (Khurshid Ahamad @ Wasim Ahmad Vs. The State of
Bihar); order dtd. 03.12.2024 passed in Petition(s) for SLP(Crl.)
No(s).12917/2024 (Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr.); order dtd. 30.09.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special leave to Appeal(Crl)
No(s).9836/2024(Bulbul Sk Vs. The State of West Bengal); order dtd.
12.08.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl) No(s)
7708/2024 (Junaid Alam Vs. State of Uttarakhand); order dtd. 09.12.2024 passed
i n Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal Crl.) No(s).13147/2024 (Tarak Singh
Vs. The State of West Bengal); order dtd. 13.08.2024 passed in Petition(s) for
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s) 7115/2024 (Sohrab Khan Vs. The State of
M.P.). He further referred to the orders passed by Coordinate Benches of this
court, order dated 22.05.2025 in M.Cr.C. No.22213/2025 (Vikash Vs. The State of
M.P.); order dated 11.12.2024, passed in M.Cr.C. No.45397/2024 (Mahesh Vs.
The State of M.P); order dtd. 30.01.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.2643/2025 (Neetesh Jaat Vs. The State of M.P.); order dtd. 21.02.2025 passed
in M.Cr.C. No.8338/2025 (Kalulal @ Karulal Vs. Union of India Through Central
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9010
4 MCRC-11542-2026
Bureau of Narcotics Ratlam); order dated 17.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.19735/2025 (Sangeeta Vs. The State of M.P.); order dtd. 17.05.2025 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.21004/2025 (Salmaan Vs. The State of M.P.); order dtd.
09.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.15510/2025 (Arun Vs. The State of M.P.); order
dtd. 05.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8769/2025 (Karulal Dhakad Vs. The State
of M.P.); order dtd. 24.04.2025, passed in M.Cr.C. No.11410/2025 (Harmesh
Singh Vs. The State of M.P.) ; order dtd. 21.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.52377/2024 (Gyan Singh Vs. The State of M.P.) ; and order dated 25.09.2025,
passed in M.Cr.C. No.36085/2025 (Surendra Vs. Union of India).
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the
ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case diary,
he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.
Applicant is aged around 20 years and is labourer by profession.
8. According to the accusation available on case diary, SI Govind Singh
Rajput of the Police Station Agar intercepted black colour Platina motor cycle
bearing registration No.MP 70 MA 2583 to verify secret information on
15.11.2024 near vegetable market gate, Narwal Road, Agar. A bag was found tied
on the motorcycle. On search of the bag, narcotic contraband cannabis (ganja) total
quantity 21 kgs was recovered. The narcotic contraband and the motorcycle were
seized in compliance with due procedure. The applicant was arrested on the spot
i.e. 15.11.2024. He is in custody ever since. The independent
seizure witnesses Pawan (PW1) and Anand (PW2) have been examined. The trial
is underway. As reported, the trial would take considerable time to conclude. The
contentions advanced by the applicant have prima facie merit and cannot be
dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of
the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9010
5 MCRC-11542-2026
9. In the case of Sheikh J aved Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 534, the Supreme Court referred to
the judgment in matter of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC OnLine SC
50, and considered the grant of bail with reference to Article 21 of the Constitution
of India and observed as under :-
32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal
liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and
sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an
accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statue if it finds
that the right of the accused under-trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not
come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal stature, howsoever
stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of
constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the
given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail.
But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statue, bail cannot be
granted. It would be run counter to the very grain of our constitutional
jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb(supra) being rendered by
a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that these observations relate to the
offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967.
11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.4648/2024 decided on 28.05.2024, has observed as under :-
Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer
as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a
reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created
under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be
considered.
12. As informed, the applicant has the responsibilities of aged
parents. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9010
6 MCRC-11542-2026
from justice. The applicant has been in custody for almost one year and four
months. The trial is not progressing at an appropriate pace. It will take time to
conclude. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue prolonged
incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are
recorded for present application only.
13. Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of 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.
14. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant-Lavish 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. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only)
with one solvent 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 ;
(2) आवेदक 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9010
7 MCRC-11542-2026
15. 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 from this order.
16. 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
sumathi
