Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ramu Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2026
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2026
[arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17648 OF 2025]
RAMU SINGH APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 6 th October,
2025, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has rejected
the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest.
3. FIR No. 0040 dated 01st February, 2024, registered with Police
Station Samnapur, District Dindori, Madhya Pradesh, alleges that
the accused therein have committed offence(s) punishable under
Section(s) 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 19851 and under Sections 195, 196, 120B, 420,
467 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. Appellant’s name did
Signature Not Verified not figure in the FIR initially. The aforesaid FIR was registered
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2026.04.23
14:22:47 IST
Reason: 1 NDPS Act
2 IPC
2
against one Ram Kishore, after 1.5 kg of ganja was allegedly
recovered from his motorcycle. Subsequently, Ram Kishore’s wife
filed a complaint alleging that the appellant, along with co-accused
Radhe Shyam, had conspired to plant the contraband in the
motorcycle in relation to a dispute regarding the post of Panchayat
Secretary. Based on this complaint, the Investigating Officer
invoked Section 9 of the NDPS Act and Sections 195, 196, 120-B,
420, 467, and 34 of the IPC against the appellant and the co-
accused Radhe Shyam.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as
well as the respondent.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant, in terms of an earlier
order of this Court, has since joined the investigation. It is also
found that co-accused Radhe Shyam has been granted the
concession of anticipatory bail by the High Court.
6. In such view of the matter and considering the nature of
allegations, we are of the considered opinion that custodial
interrogation of the appellant is not necessary and that there is
sufficient ground for the appellant to be admitted to an order for
grant of bail in anticipation of arrest.
7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order stands set
aside.
3
8. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested
in connection with proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, he
shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial
court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
9. It is made clear that in the event the appellant breaches any
of the terms and conditions imposed by it, the trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
10. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or
indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any
person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such
facts to any police officer or to the court.
11. Also, since the investigation is still in progress, we direct that
if the investigating officer calls upon the appellant to join the
investigation, he shall do so by attending the police station.
12. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant
of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
13. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………..………………………J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
4
………………………………………..J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
New Delhi;
April 22, 2026.
5
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17648/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
06-10-2025 in MCRC No. 24915/2025 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur]
RAMU SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
IA No. 280365/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 22-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR
Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv.
Ms. Anusha Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Siddhanth Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Lalwani, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. D.S. Parmar, A.A.G.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR
Mr. Divyansh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Karan Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order placed on
the file.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
[ad_1]
Source link
