[Cites 34, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandram @ Nandkishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 MCRC-29-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29 of 2026
NANDRAM @ NANDKISHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sy. Fardin Meer - Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Viraj Godha - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
As per the status report dated 18.02.2026 of the trial Court, no
prosecution witnesses out of 16 enlisted witnesses could be examined. The
trial Court states that the trial would take almost 1 to 2 years to conclude
considering the pendency of criminal cases. The Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Ratlam had reported that on an average of 4 to 5 witnesses
are examined during the day by the concerned Court. It is unfortunate state
of affairs that no witness is examined till date, despite framing of charges on
06.08.2025 and the applicant is incarcerated for more than 1 year and 6
months. Apparently, the concerned Court is examining very limited number
of witness on an average.
2. This second application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of bail in connection with Crime
No.675 of 2024 registered at Police Station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District -
2 MCRC-29-2026
Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section (s) 8/15 of NDPS Act
and Section 238 BNS, 2023. The applicant is in judicial custody since
14.11.2024. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 06/10/2025 passed in MCRC no. 33026 of 2025.
3. Heard the arguments.
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 offence. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the present
applicant. The narcotic contraband was not recovered from active and
conscious possession of applicant. There is non-compliance of due procedure
for search and seizure. The final report was submitted on completion of
investigation. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the
applicant. Jail incarceration without progress in trial is causing hardship to
the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.
6. Learned counsel submits that applicant is languishing in jail since
14.11.2024 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
3 MCRC-29-2026
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.) 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
4 MCRC-29-2026
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 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 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.
5 MCRC-29-2026
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 and submits that it is a case where
commercial quantity of narcotic contraband - Poppy straw was recovered and
seized from the possession of the applicant. However, after going through
the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against
the applicant. The applicant is aged around 25 years, he is an agriculturist by
profession.
8. According to the accusation on case diary, on 14.11.2024, S.I.
Jasrajsingh Chandel of the P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam
intercepted Nandram @ Nandkishore who was driving his black colour
honda passion motor cycle without registration number to verify the secret
information. Two plastic sacks was found tied on the vehicle. On search of
the bags, contraband (poppy straw) - total quantity of 55 Kgs. 350 grams
were recovered. Applicant was arrested on the spot. He is in custody ever
since. The trial is underway. No prosecution witnesses out of 16 enlisted
witnesses could be examined. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of
the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the
trial.
9. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 534 , the Supreme Court
6 MCRC-29-2026
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 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.
10. 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.
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
7 MCRC-29-2026
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 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 almost for one year and six months. The trial is
not progressing at an appropriate pace. It will take inordinate 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 - Nandram @
Nandkishore shall be released on bail in connection with the Crime as
mentioned in second 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
8 MCRC-29-2026
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 ।
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 had explained
the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sumathi
