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

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3114 of 2026 MOHANLAL PATIDAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Laveesh Sethia advocate for the applicant. Ms. Usha Chouhan public prosecutor for State.

ORDER

1. This third application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.164/2024 registered at Police Station - Barkheda, District Ratlam(M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 8/18, 29 of NDPS Act. Applicant is in judicial custody since 10.12.2024. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.5.2025 passed in MCRC No. 18234/2025, second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer after examination of seizure witness vide order dated 18.7.2025 passed in MCRC No. 27206/2025. Thereafter, seizure witness Mukesh (PW-1) and Paras Verma (PW-2) have been examined.

2. Heard the arguments.

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

4. 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 alleged narcotic contraband opium was not seized from the active and conscious possession of the applicant. The due procedure for search and seizure was not complied with. The independent seizure witnesses namely Mukesh (PW-1) and Paras Verma (PW-2) have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution. There is no likelihood of tampering with remaining evidence by the applicant as the material seizure witness have been examined. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. Learned counsel further refers to three criminal antecedent reported against the applicant as mentioned in the case diary. Applicant is aged around 64 years and is an agriculturist by profession.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that other matters are pending for trial. He has never been convicted for any major offence.

7. As per the accusation on case diary, S.I. Hari Singh Badera, of P.S.Barkhedakala District Ratlam(M.P.) received on secret information intercepted Mohanlal (applicant) S/o Nandram Patidar on Deepakheda Road. Mohanlal was found transporting the contraband - Opium. was seized. The contraband (Opium) Total quantity - 888 grms in a backpack was recovered and seized as per the procedure from the possession of Mohanlal. Mohanlal was arrested on the spot on 10.12.2024. Mohanlal in his statement recorded u/S 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam informed that Vinod had provided him the contraband Opium for consideration of Rs. 88,800/-. Accordingly, Vinod was apprehended on 11.12.2024. The independent seizure witnesses namely Mukesh (PW-1) and Paras Verma (PW-2) have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution. The trial is underway. The contentions advanced by the applicant have prima facie merit and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution and due compliance with the procedure for search and seizure will be determined after evidence in the trial.

8. As informed, the applicant has the family responsibilities Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of previous conviction for any offence, considering the socio economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for p