[Cites 38, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
1 MCRC-11449-2026
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. 11449 of 2026
GOVIND YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Saraswat - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Viraj Godha - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This third application has been filed by the applicant under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 375/2024
registered at Police Station - Kotwali Agar Distt. Agar Malwa(M.P.) for
offence punishable under Sections 8/18 and 29 of NDPS Act. Applicant is in
judicial custody since 27.08.2024. The first bail application of the applicant
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.11.2024, passed in M.Cr.C.
No.46105/2024 with liberty to file afresh after completion of four months
from the date of order. His second application was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9040/2025 with liberty to
renew the prayer after completion of three months from the date of order.
Thereafter, seizure witnesses Ahsaan Khan (PW-1) and Ravi(PW-2) have
been examined before the trial Court.
Heard the arguments.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
2 MCRC-11449-2026
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated
in the alleged offence. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the present
applicant. The independent seizure witnesses Ahsan Khan(PW-1) and
Ravi(PW-2) did not support the case of 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 his family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in further trial.
Learned counsel submits that applicant is languishing in jail since
27.08.2024 and 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. The Supreme
Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court have granted bail in similar
matters involving commercial quantity of narcotic contraband if the trial is
not concluded within one year despite the Bar contained under Section 37(1-
B) of the NDPS Act. Further, to buttress his contention, learned counsel for
the applicant referred to the orders of 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.)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
3 MCRC-11449-2026
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
4 MCRC-11449-2026
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 order dated 22.05.2025, passed by this court
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 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).
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the
ground of gravity of alleged offence and submits that it is a case where
commercial quantity of narcotic contraband - opium was seized and
recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the
applicant refers to 02 criminal antecedents of the applicant, as mentioned in
the case diary. Applicant is aged around 40 years at the time of arrest. He is
Driver by profession.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
5 MCRC-11449-2026
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the other
matters are pending for trial. Applicant has never been convicted for any
offence. No prosecution, similar in nature is pending against the applicant.
According to the accusation on case diary, on 27.08.2024, S.I. Vikram
Singh Jatav of the P.S. Agar intercepted Govind, the driver of truck bearing
registration no. MP 09 MH 0696 near Mahudiya Jod, Agar-Susner Road to
verify the secret information. A bag was found in the cabin of truck. On
search of the bag, three transparent polythene bags containing narcotic
contraband(opium) - total quantity of 2.810 Kilograms were recovered.
Applicant was arrested on the spot. He is in custody ever since.
T h e independent seizure witnesses Ahsaan Khan(PW-1) and Ravi(PW-
2) have been examined and they did not support the prosecution. The trial is
underway. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the
alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial.
In the case of Sheikh Javed 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, a n d 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
6 MCRC-11449-2026
in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic
pat. 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.
It is pertinent to mention here that these observations relates to the
offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967.
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.
As informed, the applicant has the responsibility of his dependent
family. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of
fleeing from justice. In absence of substantial criminal past and previous
conviction for any offence, considering the socio-economic status of the
applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of recidivism or tampering with
the evidence or influencing the remaining witnesses by the applicant. The
applicant has been in custody for one year and seven 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
7 MCRC-11449-2026
the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for
present application only.
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.
Accordingly, it is directed that applicant - Govind Yadav shall be
released on bail in connection with the 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 of similar nature;
(2) आवेदक समान कृ ित का 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 ।
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9004
8 MCRC-11449-2026
cancellation of bail without any impediment from this order.
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 had explained the conditions
to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
