[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343
1 CRR-484-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 484 of 2026
SURESH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for State of M.P.
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this revision is
heard finally.
2. This revision is filed against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed
by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S.. Act, Katni in SC N.D.P.S. 63 of
2025.
3. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the ground that the
applicant has no connection with the alleged crime and he has been
falsely implicated. No cogent reason has been assigned for rejecting the
application for Supurdnama of the Pick Up No. M.P.-18-Z.A. 9627.
4. It is further submitted that the entire reading of the prosecution
case/charge-sheet it is clear that co- accused was carrying contraband
substance and he was travelling as a passenger to travel from Amiliya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343
2 CRR-484-2026
to Kamore. The applicant was unaware regarding the fact that co-
accused was carrying contraband substance, hence this on this ground
alone the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
5. It is further submitted that under N.D.P.S. Act read with Cr.P.C.
custody of the vehicle can be given to the owner and if it is not given
then there is possibility of damage to the vehicle or the vehicle may
become dysfunctional.
6. Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the
order of the trial court is well justified and this revision should be
dismissed.
7. It it seen that perhaps due to cut and paste the ground no.4 is
mentioned as "the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail." This
typographical error is ignored.
8. On perusal of the order of learned trial court dated 31.12.2025,
it is seen that on 31.12.2025 the first Superdnama application which was
earlier filed was not pressed. It was dismissed on the same day. Second
Superdnama application was filed on which arguments were heard by the
trial court.
9. Against the present applicant and other co- accused Badi Pardhi
a Crime No.397 of 2025 r/w Section 8/20 of N.P.D.S. Act was
registered and charge-sheet has been filed and now the case is registered
as Case No.63 of 2025.
10. Pick Up No. M.P.-18-Z.A. 9627 is registered in the name of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343
3 CRR-484-2026
the present applicant - Suresh Yadav.
11. As reflected from the order and arguments of learned counsel
for both the parties 18kg and 600 gram was recovered from the joint
possession of the applicant and Badi Pardhi.
12. It is seen that the trial has to take place. In the charge -sheet the
Police has indicated that both the accused persons i.e. present applicant
and other co- accused Badi Pardhi are involved in the crime under
N.D.P.S. Act as stated above.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Denash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276 has held as under :-
33. The situation at hand may be examined with reference to the
principles enunciated by this Court in paragraphs 29 and 30 of
Bishwajit Dey (supra), wherein four scenarios were delineated
concerning the seizure of contraband from a conveyance, along with
the general approach to be adopted by Courts while considering the
question of interim release of such conveyances. Paragraphs 29 and
30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), are extracted hereinbelow for ready
reference:--
"29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take
place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four
scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a
conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person
from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is
recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the
possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired
by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the
accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle.
Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-
party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without
any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and
transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and
connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle
and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the
third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent
would not be arrayed as an accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343
4 CRR-484-2026
30. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied
in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in
the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on
superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-
owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no
allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner
and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the
interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he
would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or
he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on
the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the
vehicle needs to be confiscated.
31. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be
taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial
Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant."
(Emphasis Supplied)
34. Although, on a superficial reading, the present case might appear
to fall within the second scenario delineated in Bishwajit Dey
(supra), where contraband is recovered from the owner's agent
(driver) who is arrayed as an accused, however, the application of
criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or mechanical formula.
Each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and
circumstances. In the present matter, a holistic consideration of the
record reveals that the facts do not align strictly with the said
category for the following reasons:--
i- Firstly, the appellant is the lawful owner with valid documents,
and the vehicle was commercially engaged in transporting a
valuable consignment of 29,400 MT of iron sheets. It is highly
improbable to believe that he would risk both the costly vehicle and
the high value consigned goods and his business goodwill by
knowingly allowing narcotics to be transported along with the cargo.
ii- Secondly, the contraband, i.e., 6 kilograms of Ganja was
recovered from the four chargesheeted accused persons.
iii- Thirdly, the appellant was not arraigned as an accused and the
chargesheet contains no material suggesting that the appellant had
knowledge of or connived in the offence.
iv- It can thus, safely be presumed that the said contraband must
have been procured by the drivers and/or the khalasis without the
knowledge or connivance of the appellant.
35. In view of the above, while the present case may technically
correspond to the second scenario as enumerated in paragraph 29 of
Bishwajit Dey (supra), the peculiar factual matrix warrants a more
pragmatic approach. It would, therefore, be expedient in the interest
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343
5 CRR-484-2026
of justice to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant, as
the overall circumstances clearly indicate his bonafides and absence
of any involvement in the drugs being carried in the vehicle.
36. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal deserves
to succeed. The impugned judgment dated 20th December, 2024
passed by the High Court is accordingly set aside. The vehicle
bearing Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315 shall be released on
supurdagi to the appellant on such terms and conditions, which the
Special Court may impose.
14. Therefore what emerges from careful reading of the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State
of Assam passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A. No.87 of 2025,
vide order dated 7.1.2025 in the first and second situation as mentioned
in sub para-29 of Para 33 in the case of Denash (supra) where owner
and driver of the vehicle is the person from whom the contraband
substance is recovered till reverse burden is not discharged by the
accused, the vehicle may not be released. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
also in the case of Denash (supra) has held that strict jacket formula
cannot be applied and each case has to be examined in the in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
15. In the case of Denash (supra) for the reasons mentioned in
para-34, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where 6 km Ganja was
recovered from four charge sheeted accused in a vehicle in which Iron -
sheets were being caried granted temporary supurdnama of the vehicle.
16. In the case of Denash (supra) as very fairly admitted by
learned counsel for the applicant owner was not driver of the vehicle
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343
6 CRR-484-2026
from whom contraband substance was recovered but in this case owner
and driver of the vehicle is the same person and is an accused.
17. It is also seen that in the case of Denash (supra) Hon'ble
Supreme Court granted temporary custody of the vehicle because
29,400 MT of iron sheets were loaded in the in the involved vehicle
whereas in the case at hand no other material except Ganja in sacks was
being carried as reflected from Annexure A-2, memorandum under
Evidence Act. Therefore facts of both the cases are different.
18. All other facts have to be established during trial by way of
cross-examination.
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order dated
31.12.2025 cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly this revision
cannot be allowed and it is dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
