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

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57045 of 2025 SANTOSH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Suryansh Singh - Advocate for the applicant.

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

ORDER This is the third application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023/439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 452/2024 registered at Police Station Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 8, 20(b), 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 130(3), 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. His earlier two bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn. Applicant is under custody since 15.11.2024.

2. As per the prosecution story, 20 kg 607 grams of Ganja has been seized from the possession of applicant and co-accused. On the basis of which, offence has been registered against the present applicant and co-

accused under the aforesaid sections.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that in the FIR, time of incident is mentioned as 12:30 to 5:30 am.

Memorandum statement of present applicant was recorded at 3:15 am whereas FIR was lodged at 2:02 pm and arrest memo was prepared at 2:00 pm but co-accused Rajkumar has been arrested at 2:20 pm and Suraj has been arrested at 2:40 pm. It is submitted that there is contradictions regarding time of arrest and other proceedings of the police which creates doubt on the prosecution case. Other co-accused Sumit Jaiswal, Rajkumar and Suraj Tiwari have been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench. Applicant is under custody since 15.11.2024. The conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that It is further submitted that huge quantity of ganja has been seized from the possession of the applicant, which comes under the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that due to procedural lapse, the applicant is not entitled to grant bail. In this regard, State counsel has placed upon the decision of Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif passed in Criminal Appeal No.5544/2024. Earlier two bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn when the Court was not inclined to grant bail. Apart from it, applicant is having criminal record of three cases for the similar nature of offence. Hence, bail may not be granted to present applicant.

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

6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Consequently, bail application (third) under Section 483 of BNS for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant, stands dismissed. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

7. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)

JUDGE navin