[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7628
1 MCRC-9168-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9168 of 2026
PRADHAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Singh Sisodiya advocate for the applicant.
Shri Tarun Pagare public prosecutor for State.
ORDER
1. As per the status report, out of 19 enlisted prosecution witnesses,
only two (2) prosecution witnesses have been examined. 17 prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined. The trial Court states that the trial would
take nine to ten months to conclude considering the pendency of criminal
cases.
2. This four application has been filed by the applicant under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 669 of
2024 registered at Police Station - Alot, District - Ratlam (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Sections 8/15, and 29 of NDPS Act. Applicant is in
judicial custody since 16.11.2024.
3. His first application for grant of bail was dismissed as
withdraw vide order dated 13.3.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5289 of 2025.
Second application for grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7628
2 MCRC-9168-2026
dated 31.7.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 19222 of 2025. Third bail
application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer after
evidence of seizure witness vide order dated 23.1.2026 passed in MCRC no.
52474/2025. Thereafter, the seizure witness have been examined.
4. Heard the argument.
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 merely on suspicion. The narcotic contraband was not
seized from active and conscious possession of the applicant. No offence, as
alleged, is committed by the applicant. T h e independent seizure
witnesses Praful (PW1) Shoaib (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. Jail incarceration is causing hardship
to the applicant and the dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in
the trial. 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.
7. 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. Applicant is aged around 32 years and is an Agriculturist by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7628
3 MCRC-9168-2026
profession.
8. According to the accusation available on case diary, ASI Ashok
Chouhan of the Police Station Alot received secret information that two
persons are in possession of illegal poppy straw. Accordingly, a raid was
conducted. Veeru and Pradhan Singh were found sitting with two gunny
bags each. On search of the gunny bags, narcotic contraband poppy straw
was recovered. The narcotic contraband poppy straw total quantity 57.900 kg
was seized from joint possession of Veeru and Pradhan Singh. The applicant
Pradhan was arrested on the spot i.e. 16.11.2024. He is in custody ever
since. The trial is underway. The independent search witnesses Praful (PW1)
and Shoaib (PW2) have been examined. Only two witnesses could be
examined out of 19 enlisted witnesses. As reported, the trial would take
considerable time to conclude.
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 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
part. 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)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7628
4 MCRC-9168-2026
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 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.
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
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.
The contentions advanced by the applicant have prima facie merit and
cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution and
complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after
evidence in the trial. The interdict contained u/S 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act
would not apply against the applicant in view of the aforestated facts. .
12. As informed, the applicant has the responsibility of dependent
family. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of
fleeing from justice. The applicant has been in custody for almost one year
and four months. The trial is not progressing at an appropriate pace. It will
take 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7628
5 MCRC-9168-2026
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-Pradhan 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 ;
(2) आवेदक 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7628
6 MCRC-9168-2026
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/she had
explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
