[Cites 37, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vasudev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
1 MCRC-2902-2026
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. 2902 of 2026
VASUDEV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Saraswat, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Solanki, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. As per the status report, two prosecution witnesses have been
examined. Twenty nine prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The trial
Court states that the trial would take almost 09-10 months to conclude
considering the pendency of criminal cases.
2. This fourth application has been filed by the applicant under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.281 of 2023
registered at Police Station - Alot, District Ratlam(M.P.) for offence punishable
under Sections 8/18 and 29 of NDPS Act. Applicant is in judicial custody since
11.05.2023.
3. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 12.03.2024, passed in M.Cr.C.No.54445 of 2023.
His second application for temporary bail was dismissed vide order dated
18.10.2024, passed in MCRC No.45098 of 2024 with liberty to file fresh
application, if occasion arises. The third temporary bail application of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
2 MCRC-2902-2026
applicant for a period of 45 days was allowed vide order dated 17.05.2025, passed
in M.Cr.C. No.19269 of 2025. Thereafter, seizure witnesses Omprakash(PW1)
and Kushal(PW2) have been examined..
4. Heard the arguments.
5. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
6 . 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. The narcotic contraband was not seized from active and
conscious possession of the applicant. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the
applicant. The independent seizure witnesses, Omprakash(PW1) and
Kushal(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. Co-accused Bherulal has been extended benefit of bail vide order
dated 28.07.2023, passed in MCRC No.29672/2023. Jail incarceration is causing
hardship to the applicant and his family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in
further trial.
7. 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. 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 the Supreme Court in
the matters of Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Petition(s) for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
3 MCRC-2902-2026
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)12225/2024 (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 &
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
4 MCRC-2902-2026
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
in 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 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).
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the
ground of gravity of alleged offence. Learned counsel further refers to 01 criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
5 MCRC-2902-2026
antecedent against the applicant, as mentioned in the case diary. Applicant is aged
30 years and is an agriculturist by profession.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has been acquitted in Crime No./SCNDPS No.07/2017 vide judgment dated
19.12.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge(NDPS Act), Jaora, District
Ratlam. No prosecution is pending against him.
10. As per accusation on case diary, on 11.05.2023, on the basis of secret
information, the police force of P.S. Alot, District Ratlam conducted a raid near
Railway Station, behind Kalka Mata Mandir and intercepted a motor-cycle
bearing registration no.MP 43 DR 1346. During search, applicant - Vasudev and
co-accused Bherulal were found transporting 7.00 KG opium on the said vehicle.
The accused could not produce valid licence or authority for transporting the
aforesaid contraband. Accordingly, applicant was arrested on 11.05.2023. He is
in custody ever since. The trial is underway. The independent seizure
witnesses Omprakash(PW1) and Kushal(PW2) have been examined. Only two
witnesses could be examined out of 31 enlisted witnesses. Co-accused Bherulal
has been extended benefit of bail. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of
the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial.
11. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
6 MCRC-2902-2026
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
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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. As informed, the applicant has responsibility of the the dependent
family. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing
from justice. In absence of any substantial criminal past or previous conviction for
any major 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 almost three years. The trial is not progressing at an appropriate pace.
It will take time to conclude. There appears to be no compelling reason to
continue incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
7 MCRC-2902-2026
are recorded for present application only.
15. Considering the rival contentions, long custody of the applicant 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.
16. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant - Vasudev s hall 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. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
Thousand 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 ।
17. 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.
18. The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8918
8 MCRC-2902-2026
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
pn
