[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9226
1 MCRC-13479-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13479 of 2026
MAAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Saraswat - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal GA for the State.
ORDER
1 . This second application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.
78 of 2025 registered at Police Station - Barod, District -Agar-Malwa (M.P.)
for offence punishable under Section (s) 8, 15 and 29 of NDPS Act . The
applicant is in judicial custody since 19/10/2025. His first bail application
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09/12/2025 passed in MCRC
no. 53538 of 2025. Thereafter, the independent witnesses Dilip [PW-1] and
Iliyaz [PW-2] have been examined before the trial Court.
2. Heard the arguments.
3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant has been falsely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9226
2 MCRC-13479-2026
implicated in this matter, merely on the basis of information given by co-
accused in police custody, which are not admissible in view of the laid down
in the cases of Deepak Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2020) 2 SCC
(Cri.) and Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC
1. No incriminating material, much less, narcotic contraband was seized from
direct and immediate possession of the applicant. There is no incriminating
material to show complicity of the applicant in alleged offence. Applicant is
implicated on the basis of alleged mobile communication. The alleged SIM
No. 8964961957 is not registered in name of applicant. The mobile phone
used for communication is not recovered. The transcript of alleged
communication (four days prior to the seizure) is not available, therefore, no
adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of alleged communication
between the applicant and the driver of seized truck. The independent
witnesses of information memo implicating applicant, namely Dilip [PW-1]
and Iliyaz [PW-2] did not support the prosecution. There is no likelihood of
tampering with remaining evidence by the applicant. Jail incarceration is
causing hardship to the applicant. Applicant is ready to co-operate in the
trial. Therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail.
5 . 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. The applicant is aged around 59 years and is an agriculturist by
profession.
6. As per the accusation on case diary, Rodulal, Rahul and Kamlesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9226
3 MCRC-13479-2026
were apprehended while transporting narcotic contraband poppy straw, total
quantity 11 Qt, 55 Kg 740 grams in a pick-up vehicle on 14/05/2025.
Initially, Rodulal and Rahul did not disclose the name of applicant, but later
on 17/05/2026, they informed that Mahendra and his father Mansingh
(applicant) had provided them the narcotic contraband poppy-straw.
Accordingly, the applicant was arrested on 19/10/2025. He is in custody ever
since. No incriminating material was seized at the instance of applicant
during investigation. The call detail report shows the communication
between the applicant and Rodulal on 11/05/2025 for four times. There is no
material to show communication between 11/05/2005 and the date of seizure
i.e. 14/05/2025. The transcript of communication or money trail suggesting
complicity of applicant is not available. The independent witnesses of
information memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act did not support the
prosecution before the trial Court. The contentions advanced by the applicant
have prima facie merit and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The
veracity of the prosecution and complicity of the applicant will be
determined after evidence in trial. In view of the aforestated facts, the Court
is of the considered opinion that the interdict contained under Section 37(1-
b) of the NDPS Act would not operate against the applicant.
7. As informed, the applicant has family responsibilities. He is
suffering from neuro related ailment. Considering these aspects, there
appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any
criminal antecedent, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant,
there appears to be no likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9226
4 MCRC-13479-2026
or influencing the remaining witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be
no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the applicant. However, it
is clarified that the observations, herein above, are recorded for present
application only.
8. 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.
9 . Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Maan Singh S/o Shiv
Singh 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9226
5 MCRC-13479-2026
नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करे गा ।
10. 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.
11. 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
amol
