IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54758 of 2025 JAGDISH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Apoorv Joshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 422/2025 registered at Police Station- Manak Chowk, District- Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in the matter.

Heard the arguments.

Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.

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 the basis of information of co-accused in police custody, which is not admissible in view of the laid down in the cases of Deepak Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2020) 2 SCC (Cri.) and Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. There was no communication between applicant and other accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that applicant enjoys good character and social standing. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed in the matter. Jail incarceration on false accusation would cause hardship to the applicant. He is ready to cooperate in investigation and the trial. Therefore, applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case dairy, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.

According to the material available on case diary, ASI Shivnath Singh Rathore of P.S. Manak Chowk, Distt. Ratlam intercepted Ramesh who was driving a Eicher Truck bearing registration no. MH 18 BG 4856 at By-pass Ring Road, Village Titri on verification of secret information on 24.07.2025. On search of the vehicle, 24 gunny bags containing narcotic contraband Poppy straw - total quantity 440 kg 550 grams was recovered. The Eicher Truck and contraband were seized in due compliance with the procedure. The P.S. Manak Chowk registered FIR for offence punishable u/S 8/15 NDPS Act against - Driver - Ramesh. Ramesh was arrested on the spot. Ramesh in his memo recorded u/S 23(2) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam informed that Sandeep alias Sonu had provided him the Eicher truck for transportation of narcotic contraband poppy straw to Punjab. Accordingly, Sandeep alias Sonu was arrested on 29.07.2025. Sandeep alias Sonu informed that Rakesh and Jagdish(applicant), residents of Bhavgarh and Pratapgarh, respectively, provided the narcotic contraband - Poppy Straw for delivery to Malkit Singh, a resident of Ludhiyana, Punjab.

It is contended that the statement made by the co-accused is not admissible. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in Tofan Singh(supra). The Supreme Court considered the law laid down in Tofan Singh in matter of Union of India Vs Khaliludeen, 2022 Supreme SC 1247 and denied bail to the accused, who was named by the co-accused. It was observed:

“8. The answer to said question could be the statement recorded by Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain, recorded under Section 67 of the act, has also named his owner Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 have been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, 2022 Live Law (SC) 69, the rigour of law laid down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail.

9.