IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55263 of 2025 BIHARI LAL GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No. 391/2025 registered at Police Station - Jaithri, District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20B of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has been arrested on

12.09.2025.

2. As per the prosecution story, police seized 12.285 grams of ganja from the joint possession of applicant and co-accused, therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against him.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 12.09.2025. It is also submitted that FSL report has not been received. The procedure under Section 52-A of NDPS Act was complied with after a delay 13 days. It is further submitted that seizure memo does not mentioned that where the applicant had kept the bag at the time of search. It is further submitted that the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the applicant, which is mandatory under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. There is violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and detention is illegal on this ground also, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Applicant is in custody since 09.06.2025. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025). Trial will take time to conclude, hence, it is prayed that applicant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed grant of bail to the applicant and submits that applicant was having knowledge of his arrest and he was well aware of the fact that contraband has been seized from him and measured in front of him. The intention behind furnishing the ground of arrest is that accused should know why he is being arrested. In this case, applicant was well aware that contraband articles has been seized from his possession and he knows the consequences of possessing such contraband articles. When applicant was arrested, police has informed him that for which offence he has been arrested. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the aforesaid cases of is not applicable in this case as the facts and circumstances of this case different from the aforesaid cited cases. It is submitted that applicant knew that why he has been arrested therefore at the time of deciding the bail application before the trial Court, the question regarding ground of arrest was not raised by the applicant. Applicant has criminal record of five cases, out of which four cases are of a similar nature bearing Crime No.294/19, Crime No.258/23, Crime No.330/2021 and Crime No.391/25. One case is under the Excise Act bearing Crime No.322/25. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

6. In this case, on behalf of the present applicant, it is argued that applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of non-filing of FSL report along with the chargesheet.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that in recent judgment of Supreme Court delivered in the case of CBI. Vs. Kapil Wadhawan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 66, wherein it was held as under:

"22. In view of the above settied legal position, there remains no shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into the cogniz