IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 24 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43196 of 2025 VIVEK ALIAS ALOK SAHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri V. S. Choudhary - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition is filed under Section 483 read with Section

187(3) of BNSS, 2023 for grant of default bail relating to Crime No.240/2025 registered at Police Station - Tilwara, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

Applicant is in custody since 14.07.2025.

2. The applicant is accused in Crime No.240/2025, whereby the quantity of Ganja is recovered from the accused under Section 8 and 20 of NDPS. The Ganja is of the quantity of 10.304 Kg. It is submitted that thereafter accused was arrested on 14.07.2025, and he was produced before the Court on the same day and sent to the jail. It also transpires that the challan is required to be filed on or before 12.09.2025, as 60 days are over and, therefore, the challan is filed subsequently on 13.09.2025. Therefore, the application is filed for getting the default bail under Section 483 read with section 187(3) of BNSS.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the quantity of Ganja is 10.304 Kg, thus such quantity cannot be considered as commercial quantity as the sentence provided under the Act is up to 10 years. Therefore, in view of Section 187 (3) of BNSS, case of the applicant requires consideration as admittedly challan is not filed within 60 days, but it is filed subsequently. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2024 (7) SCC 147 in the case of Enforcement Directorate, Govt. of India vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another. He has strongly relied on para 50 of the said judgment. He has also relied on the judgments of Kerela High Court in the case of Mohd. Sajjid Vs. State of Kerela as well as the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dheeraj Singh Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan and submitted that considering the provisions of Section 187 (3) of BNSS which is earlier Section 167(2) of CR.P.C., the application is required to be considered appropriately and applicant is required to be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submission made by counsel for the applicant and submitted that in view of the judgment of M.P. High Court in the case of Khilan Singh Vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.35379/2022 and also in the case of Raja Bhaiya Singh Vs. State of M.P. in Cr.R. No.1813/2020, the question whether the challan is required to be filed within 60 days or 90 days is required to be considered, considering the quantity of Ganja of 10.304 Kg recovered from the applicant. He has further submitted that even otherwise, considering the fact that the date of remand is required to be excluded and, therefore, considering that aspect assuming that the challan is required to be filed within 60 days, however, the same is already filed within 60 days and submitted that in view of the judgment more particularly, the judgment in the case Raja Bhaiya Singh of which paragraphs

14, 15 and 16 are relevant, which are reproduced as under:

“14. As for as computation of period of 90 or 60 days is concerned, the law has been settled. It was held in Jagdish and others, v. State of M. P., 1984 CRI. L. J. 79 [M.P.] that date of arrest is to be excluded. Further in the case of Chaganti Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., AIR 1986 S.C. 2130 = [1986] 3 SCC 141 = 1986 Cri.L.R. 256 the Apex court said that Period of 90 days / 60 days envisaged by Proviso (a) begins to run from date of order of remand and not from earlier date when accused was arrested. The court observed that detention can be authorized by the Magistrate only when the order of remand is pa