IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL st ON THE 1 OF MARCH, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3273 of 2025 SOHANLAL MESHKAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Ajay Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Pradeep Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This is fourth application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of BNSS, 2023) for grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No.107/2023 dated 11.09.2023, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, District Bhopal (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Applicant is in detention since 11.09.2023.

2. Applicant's earlier three bail applications were dismissed on merits vide orders dated 14.12.2023, 16.05.2024 and 02.12.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.52725/2023, M.Cr.C. No.20325/2024 and M.Cr.C.. No.51381/2024 respectively.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 11.09.2023 on the basis of information received from the informant, Crime Branch police, Bhopal encircled two men and one women and apprehended them. In interrogation they introduced themselves as Mohd. Tahir, Sohanlal Meshkar and Sharda Devi. After Signature Not Verified following procedure contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act, search of accused persons was conduted. From Tahir's bag 5 kgs Charas was reovered, one kg charas was recovered from the possession of Sharda Devi and 3 kgs of Charas was recovered from the possession of present applicant Sohanlal Meshkar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has not committed any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Nothing was seized from his possession. Independent seizure witnesses have been examined and they have turned hostile and only 5-6 witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be released on bail on the ground of delay in trial.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and has submitted that applicant has criminal background of three cases and out of these cases, one case is under NDPS Act. As such applicant has previous criminal background under NDPS Act.

Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may not be released on bail.

6. I have heard learned learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

7. Earlier three bail applications have already been dismissed on merits. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673, Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the light of schemes of the Act has observed as under:-

“A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of Signature Not Verified the court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for.” “The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced, are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Sec