[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meena Kanjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8671
1 MCRC-11660-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11660 of 2026
MEENA KANJAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajkumar Awasthi - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Harish Sharma Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
ORDER
This is fifth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicants for grant of bail.
The applicants have been arrested 27.1.2026 by Police Station Excise
Department, District Datia in connection with Crime No.415/2025,
registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) A and
49 (A) of M.P. Excise Act.
Allegation against the present applicant is that they were found under
joint possession of 46 bulk litres of illicit liquor.
Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants are innocent
and have been falsely implicated. They are in custody since 27.1.2026. Final
conclusion of trial will take long sufficient time. Earlier applicants were
granted bail by order dated 19.12.2025 passed in MCRC No.57705 of 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8671
2 MCRC-11660-2026
and 57706 of 2025 with direction that if FSL report found positive, then
applicants shall have to surrender. Thereafter, according to the condition,
applicants had surrendered. Investigation is almost over, therefore, custodial
interrogation is no longer required. Final Conclusion of trial will take long
sufficient time. Applicants are the permanent resident of District - Datia
(M.P.) and there is no possibility of their absconsion or tampering with the
prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicants.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that the applicants are having criminal
history of 11 cases and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary
available on record.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and nature
of allegations, coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in
near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the
concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the
applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,
this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for their appearance on the
dates given by the concerned Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8671
3 MCRC-11660-2026
following conditions by the applicants:-
1. The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond
executed by them;
2. The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;
4 . The applicants shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the
trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without
further reference to the Bench;
5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
and
6. The applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial
Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
