IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4968 of 2026 VIRENDRA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Rishikesh Kumar - Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Atul Kumar Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of bail relating to Crime No.107/2025 registered at Civil Lines, Morena for the offence under Sections 8(20) of N.D.P.S. Act.

Allegation against the present applicant is that he was found under possession of 3098 KG Ganja, for which he was not having any valid license.

Learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offense. He has been in custody since 13.03.2025. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. Since the contraband has already been seized, there is no requirement for further custodial interrogation of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is merely the driver of the vehicle from which the ganja was allegedly seized. Furthermore, the main co-accused persons are absconding, and the authorities have not yet arrested them. Under similar facts and circumstances, other similarly situated accused have been granted bail by various other High Court. Regarding the ground of conscious possession, the applicant was merely fulfilling his duties and was unaware of the contents of the consignment, therefore, he prays for bail. It is also argued that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, and there is no possibility of the applicant absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. Hence, the counsel prayed for the grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and argued that the seized contraband comes within the purview of commercial quantity, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, bail cannot be granted to the applicant. In such circumstances, the bail order of co-accused is of no help to the present applicant. He prayed for dismissal of present bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

For ready reference and convenience Section 37 of NDPS Act is reproduced herein below :-

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under ' ' section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.”

Consequently, in view of the provision of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act, since the Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and there is no ground to believe that the applicant / accused is not guilty of the offence as alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant / accused.

Hence, the bail application is rejected.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )

JUDGE (LJ*)