IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE MCRC No. 52351 of 2025 (SOHANLAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 09-12-2025 Shri Himanshu Thakur- Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Anand Soni- Additional Advocate General and Shri Hemant Sharma- G.A. for the State.

Shri Vinod Kumar Meena, S.P. Mandsaur present in person.

1] In this application, this Court has already granted interim bail to the applicant vide its order dated 05.12.2025, and considering the controversy involved, wherein, the applicant has contended that he was illegally arrested from a bus by the police personnel in the morning of 29.08.2025, whereas, he has been shown to be arrested in the evening at 05:15 p.m., and taking into account the CCTV footage of the bus in which the applicant was sitting, this Court had also directed the S.P., Mandsaur to remain present in this Court, and apprise about the entire episode looking to the prima facie defence established by the applicant. Today, Shri Vinod Kumar Meena, S.P. Mandsaur is present before this Court, and has informed that the six police personnel, who were found to be involved in the case, have already been suspended with immediate effect. Copy of the order of suspension order dated 06.12.2025 is also placed on record, and it is submitted that appropriate action shall be taken against the delinquent officers.

2] Shri Anand Soni, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the seizure of contraband was effected from the present applicant in the morning only, however, due to procedural lapses, it has been shown to be recovered in the evening. It is also submitted that since this Court is considering the bail application only, its scope may not be enlarged.

3] Heard. So far as the interim bail granted to the applicant vide Court order dated 05.12.2025 is concerned, the same is hereby made absolute, as no further order is required to be passed.

4] However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it necessary to give certain directions to the respondent/State.

So far as the contention of Shri Soni that this Court should not enlarge the scope of this bail application is concerned, this Court finds that in order to safeguard the life and liberty of the citizens of this country, the immediate custodian of which is the High Court only, who can exercise its inherent powers not only under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S., but also plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to safeguard the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, at times, it becomes incumbent upon this Court to ensure that such rights are protected not only in the present, but in future also and that can only be done at the appropriate stage by giving appropriate directions.

5] This Court also finds that it is only in such circumstances as the present one, when the Court has the occasion to deal with such matters, and if such occasions/incidents are ignored or glossed over, the opportunity to undo the wrong is lost forever, again leaving the field open to the wrongdoers to have their say until the next time when some other such unfortunate incident takes place and some other person is victimised, which is brought to the knowledge of this Court. Thus, the contention of Shri Soni that this Court should confine itself to the jurisdiction of bail only is hereby rejected.

6] Now, turning to the main issue of proper investigation, reference may be had to the provisions of Section 105 and 185 of B.N.S.S., which read as under:-

“105. Recording of search and seizure through audio-video electronic means.

The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without del