Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5269
1 MCRC-2863-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2863 of 2026
GHANSHYAM SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
As per the status report, 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Five
witnesses were given up by the prosecutor. 05 prosecution witnesses are yet to be
examined. The trial Court states that the trial would take one year to conclude
considering the pendency of criminal cases.
This fourth application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 843/2023 registered at
Police Station – Industrial Area Jaora, District Ratlam(M.P.) for offence punishable
under Sections 8/15, 19 & 29 of NDPS Act. Applicant is in judicial custody since
10.12.2023.
The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on meritsvide order
dated 09.08.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 28286/2024. His second bail application was
dismissed as withdrawn v i d e order dated 17.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.
42911/2024. His third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
06.10.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 27664/2025 with liberty to renew the prayer if the
trial is not concluded within four months.
Heard the arguments.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:18:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5269
2 MCRC-2863-2026
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and
the relevant material on record.
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 narcotic contraband was not seized from active and
conscious possession of the applicant. The house does not belong to applicant. No
offence, as alleged, is committed by the applicant. The independent seizure
witnesses Karulal (PW-1) and Ashok Sen (PW2) did not support the prosecution.
There is no likelihood of tampering with the remaining evidence by the applicant. The
trial would take time to conclude. Co-accused Ranchod, Ramniwas and Pawan Sarsi
have been extended benefit of bail vide orders dated 24.01.2024, 07.02.2024 and
27.02.204 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 57990/2023, M.Cr.C. No. 5244/2024 and M.Cr.C.
No. 8183/2024. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and his family.
Applicant is ready to cooperate in further trial.
Learned counsel further submits that the prolonged custody is anathema to the
fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Long custody without trial infringes the right to fair and speedy trial. The
Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court have granted bail in similar
matters involving commercial quantity of narcotic contraband if the trial is not
concluded within one year despite the Bar contained under Section 37(1-B) of the
NDPS Act. Further, to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant
referred to the orders of the Supreme Court in the matters of Ankur Chaudhary Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No.4648/2024
decided on 28.05.2024; Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh[2024 INSC 534]; order dated 25.01.2023, passed in Petition(s) for
Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No(s).6690/2022 (Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. The State
of Uttar Pradesh); order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:18:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5269
3 MCRC-2863-2026
Appeal(Crl.) No.1303/2025 (Mohit Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P.); order dated
08.11.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No(s)12225/2024
(MD. Tajiur Rahaman @ Tajiur Rahaman Vs. The State of West Bengal) ; order dated
26.05.2025 passed in Petition(s) for SLP(Crl.) No(s) 7072/2025 (Mijanul Islam @
Laltu & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal); order dtd. 17.03.2025, passed in Petition(s) for
Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No(s).1737/2025 (Santosh Sahoo @ Santosh Saho Vs.
The Union of India); order dated 03.09.2024, passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal(Crl.) No(s) 8557/2024 (Sabat Mehtab Khan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra); order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Petition(s) for SPL No(s)16671/2024
(Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit Vs. State of Rajasthan); order dtd. 17.03.2025 passed in
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl) No(s).1706/2025 (Omprakash Vs. The
State of Gujarat); order dtd. 12.11.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal(Crl) No(s)8353/2024 (Salimbhai Hamjibhai Vagehela Vs. The State of
Gujarat); order dated 20.02.2025, passed in Cri. A. No.859/2025(arising out of Special
Leave Petition(Crl) No.17042/2024 (Anandbhai Rajendrabhai Vaniya Vs. The State of
Gujarat), order dtd. 09.02.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl)
No(s) 16726/2023 (Khurshid Ahamad @ Wasim Ahmad Vs. The State of
Bihar); order dtd. 03.12.2024 passed in Petition(s) for SLP(Crl.) No(s).12917/2024
(Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.); order dtd. 30.09.2024
passed in Petition(s) for Special leave to Appeal(Crl) No(s).9836/2024(Bulbul Sk Vs.
The State of West Bengal); order dtd. 12.08.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special
Leave to Appeal(Crl) No(s) 7708/2024 (Junaid Alam Vs. State of Uttarakhand); order
dtd. 09.12.2024 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal Crl.)
No(s).13147/2024 (Tarak Singh Vs. The State of West Bengal); order dtd. 13.08.2024
passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s) 7115/2024 (Sohrab Khan
Vs. The State of M.P.). He further referred to the orders passed by Coordinate Benches
of this court, order dated 22.05.2025 in M.Cr.C. No.22213/2025 (Vikash Vs. The State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:18:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5269
4 MCRC-2863-2026
of M.P.); order dated 11.12.2024, passed in M.Cr.C. No.45397/2024 (Mahesh Vs. The
State of M.P); order dtd. 30.01.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2643/2025 (Neetesh Jaat
Vs. The State of M.P.); order dtd. 21.02.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8338/2025
(Kalulal @ Karulal Vs. Union of India Through Central Bureau of Narcotics
Ratlam); order dated 17.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19735/2025 (Sangeeta Vs. The
State of M.P.); order dtd. 17.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21004/2025 (Salmaan Vs.
The State of M.P.); order dtd. 09.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.15510/2025 (Arun Vs.
The State of M.P.); order dtd. 05.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8769/2025 (Karulal
Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P.); order dtd. 24.04.2025, passed in M.Cr.C.
No.11410/2025 (Harmesh Singh Vs. The State of M.P.) ; order dtd. 21.04.2025 passed
in M.Cr.C. No.52377/2024 (Gyan Singh Vs. The State of M.P.); and order dated
25.09.2025, passed in M.Cr.C. No.36085/2025 (Surendra Vs. Union of India).
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground
of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly
states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant. Applicant is aged
around 34 years and is an Agriculturist by profession.
According to the material available on case diary, on 10.12.2023 ASI Jasraj
Chandel of the P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, conducted a raid at the agricultural field of
Balu Mali to verify the secret information. Ghanshyam(applicant) was found sitting in
the bushes on gunny bags. On search of the gunny bags, narcotic contraband poppy
straw Doda Chura, total quantity 115 Kilograms was recovered. Ghanshyam could not
produce any valid permit. Therefore, the narcotic contraband was seized from the
possession of Ghanshyam (applicant). Accordingly, applicant was arrested on the
spot. He is in custody ever since. The trial is underway. The independent seizure
witnesses Karulal(PW1) and Ashok Sen (PW2) did not support the prosecution. 14
witnesses could be examined out of 19 enlisted witnesses. As reported, the trial would
take considerable time to conclude. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:18:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5269
5 MCRC-2863-2026
applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial.
In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 534, the Supreme Court referred to the
judgment in matter of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC OnLine SC
50, and considered the grant of bail with reference to Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and observed as under :-
32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal
liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and
sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an
accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statue if it finds
that the right of the accused under-trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not
come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal stature, howsoever
stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of
constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic pat. In the
given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail.
But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statue, bail cannot be
granted. It would be run counter to the very grain of our constitutional
jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb(supra) being rendered by
a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.
It is pertinent to mention here that these observations relate to the offence
punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and Section 16 of
the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4648/2024 decided on
28.05.2024, has observed as under :-
Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer
as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a
reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created
under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be
considered.
As informed, the applicant has the responsibility of depdendent
family. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing fromSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:18:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:52696 MCRC-2863-2026
justice. In absence of any criminal antecedent, considering the socio-economic status
of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with the evidence or
influencing the remaining witnesses by the applicant. The applicant has been in
custody for more than two years. The trial is not progressing at an appropriate pace. It
will take time to conclude. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue
prolonged incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are
recorded for present application only.
Considering the rival contentions, long custody of the applicant and overall
circumstances of the case, in the light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on
the merits, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application
is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that applicant – Ghanshyam shall be released on
bail in connection with the Crime as mentioned in first paragraph of this order, upon
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand
only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
for compliance with the following conditions :(For convenience of understanding by
accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-
(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court;
(1) आवेदक संबंिधत यायालय के िनदशानुसार सुनवाई क येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहे गा ।
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) आवेदक समान कृ ित का केाई अपराध नह ं करे गा या उसम स मिलत नह ं होगा ।
(3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to the police officer;
(3) आवेदक करण के त य से प रिचत कसी य को य या अ य प से लोभन, धमक या वचन नह ं
दे गा, जससे ऐसा य ऐसे त य को यायालय या पुिलस अिधकार को कट करने से िनवा रत हो
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or
threaten the witness;
(4) आवदे क य या अ य प से सा य के साथ छे डछाड करने का या सा ी या सा य को बहलाने-फुसलाने,
दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह ं करे गा ।
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C ./346 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;
(5) वचारण के दौरान, उप थत गवाह से पर ण के संबंध म आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं . .सं./ ३४६ भारतीय नाग रक
सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करे गा ।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:18:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5269
7 MCRC-2863-2026
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach of
any of the preconditions of bail, the trial Court may consider, on merit, cancellation of
bail without any impediment from this order.
The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal bond by
the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of them is unable to
write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the conditions to the concerned
accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:18:07
