Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arshad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14513
1 MCRC-16196-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16196 of 2026
ARSHAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. R K Sharma - Senior counsel with Mr. Abhijeet Singh Tomar -
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Dinesh Savita - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The applicant has filed this Third application under Section 483 of the
BNSS for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested by Police Station Noorabad,
District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.218/2022 registered for
offence under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act. His earlier bail application was already dismissed as withdrawn by this Court
vide order dated 15.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.57778/2025.
2 . The story of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2022, on the information
received from the informant, S.I. Upendra Parashar, intercepted a car. Upon
interception, two persons escaped from the spot and from the aforesaid, 72 KG of
Ganza was recovered. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and he is in custody since 29.09.2025. The
present applicant was not present on the spot and he has been implicated only on
the basis of memorandum of the co-accused. At the time of incident, the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14513
2 MCRC-16196-2026
applicant was in Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) and a report in this regard has also been
produced certifying that the present applicant was out of State. It is further
submitted that the alleged car is not owned by the applicant and the applicant is
not the registered owner of the alleged car. It is further submitted that at the time
of the applicant’s arrest, the grounds of arrest were not specified in the arrest
memo. Consequently, the arrest is illegal and in violation of Articles 20 and 22 of
the Constitution of India. This position is supported by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India and Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No. 3327 of
2026], Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2356], and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8
SCC 254], wherein the Court mandated that police authorities must state the
grounds of arrest in the arrest memo. On these grounds, the applicant is entitled to
be released on bail. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. Since, the
alleged contraband has already been seized, therefore, the custodial interrogation
is no required. Necessary provision of NDPS Act, have also not been followed. It
is further submitted that the independent witnesses have turned hostile and have
failed to support the case of the prosecution. After withdrawal of the earlier
application, investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore,
applicant deserves bail. He is permanent resident of District Muzaffarnagar (U.P),
therefore, there is no apprehension of his absconsion or tampering with the
prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to abide by the conditions as
imposed by this Court. Therefore, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, Counsel for the State submits that the matter pertains
to the recovery of 72 kg of Ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity. It is
further submitted that the punishment for contravention in relation to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14513
3 MCRC-16196-2026
manufactured drugs and preparations, as defined under Section 22 of the NDPS
Act, stipulates that ‘where the contravention involves a commercial quantity, [the
accused shall be punished] with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be
liable to a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend
to two lakh rupees. Counsel further submits that since the seized contraband falls
within the purview of a commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act apply; therefore, bail should not be granted to the applicant. Furthermore, it is
submitted that the applicant had been absconding for approximately three years
and was only recently arrested on 29.09.2025. Finally, it is submitted that the
vehicle from which the alleged commercial quantity of contraband was seized is
owned by the present applicant. In support of his contention, Counsel for the State
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc. (Cr.A. No. 3538-3543 of 2025) , wherein it was
held that a delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a
valid ground for the grant of bail. This ownership is evidenced by a sale
agreement between the previous owner and the applicant. Consequently, the State
prays for the dismissal of the bail application.
5. At this stage, counsel for the applicant vehemently opposed the State’s
contention, citing the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Rajinder Rajan (Supra). In that case, the Court mandated that police authorities
must clearly specify the grounds of arrest in the arrest memo. Under these
circumstances, the ruling in Sri Darshan (Supra) is no longer applicable to the
specific facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. In reply, the State counsel submits that the aforementioned rule is
inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the applicant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14513
4 MCRC-16196-2026
was only recently arrested after having been absconding for over two years. It is
further submitted that technicalities should not prevail over the gravity of heinous
offenses, particularly since the seized contraband is of a commercial quantity. In
light of these circumstances, the State prays for the dismissal of the present bail
application.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. 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.”
7. So far as argument of learned counsel for the applicant / accused that
independent seizure witnesses have turned hostile is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi); (2013) 6
SCC 588 held as under:-
“13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988
Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48] , State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v.
Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v.
State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid
down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595
: 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that
the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony
should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at largeSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:145135 MCRC-16196-2026
show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the
testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy,
the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of
scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police
officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him
but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from
the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also
based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the
quantity of evidence.”
8. Similarly, in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab; (2015) 6 SCC 674 , by
referring to the case of State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil; (2001) 1 SCC
652, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-
“23. … That apart, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely
on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined
when, on the perusal of the evidence on record the Court finds that the
case put forth by the prosecution is trustworthy. When the evidence of
the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is no reason not
to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence.”
9. In the case of Sunil (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“21… At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the
police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the
presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the
police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of
presumption and recognised even by the legislature… If the court has
any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the
police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other
independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a
legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as
unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason
that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the
documents made contemporaneous with such actions.”
10. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Naushad v. State
(NCT of Delhi); 2023 SCC OnLine SC 784 observed that the testimonies of
police witnesses as well as pointing out memos do not stand vitiated due to the
abscence of independent witnesses.
11. Thus, it is clear from the above propositions of law that the testimonies
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14513
6 MCRC-16196-2026
of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution.
12. In Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of
2022 dated 18.01.2022 ), this Court reiterated that the fact that the prosecution
case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a valid ground to release the accused
on bail, especially where a complete chain of circumstances has been prima facie
established during investigation. In such circumstances, Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under-:
“6. …. the High Court has not at all adverted to the material collected
during the course of the investigation. The High Court has not at all
considered the material/evidence collected during the course of the
investigation even prima facie and has directed to release respondent
no.2 in such a serious offence of hatching conspiracy to kill his wife,
by simply observing that as it is a case of circumstantial evidence,
which is a weak piece of evidence, it is not legal and proper to deny
bail to respondent no.2. Merely because the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence cannot be a ground to release the accused on
bail, if during the course of the investigation the evidence/material has
been collected and prima facie the complete chain of events is
established. As observed hereinabove, while releasing respondent no.2
on bail, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not at all
adverted to and/or considered any of the material/evidence collected
during the course of the investigation, which is a part of the charge-
sheet.
7. One another reason given by the High Court to release respondent
no.2 on bail is that the accused has deep root in the society and no
apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tampering with the
evidence/witnesses is expressed. In a case of committing the offence
under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and in a case of hatching
conspiracy to kill his wife and looking to the seriousness of the
offence, the aforesaid can hardly be a ground to release the accused on
bail.”
1 3 . The present case involves the seizure of 72 kg of Ganja, which
undisputedly falls within the category of “commercial quantity.” Consequently,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14513
7 MCRC-16196-2026
the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. Under this
provision, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail. In the instant case, the prosecution has produced
evidence of a sale agreement suggesting the applicant’s ownership of the vehicle
used in the crime.
14. Regarding the applicant’s contention that the arrest was illegal due to
the failure to specify grounds in the arrest memo, while the recent jurisprudence in
Dr. Rajinder Rajan and Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) emphasizes the constitutional
necessity of informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest, this Court must balance
such procedural requirements against the gravity of the offence and the conduct of
the accused. The record indicates that the applicant remained absconding for
nearly three years before being apprehended. As held in Sri Darshan (Supra) ,
technical delays or procedural irregularities in the arrest process do not
automatically entitle an accused to bail in cases involving heinous crimes and
commercial quantities of narcotics.
15. Furthermore, the argument that independent witnesses have turned
hostile does not weaken the prosecution’s case at the stage of considering bail. As
consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar (supra) and
Mohd. Naushad (supra), the testimony of official/police witnesses is not to be
discarded merely because independent witnesses have not supported the story,
provided the official testimony is reliable.
16. In case the large quantity of the contraband seized, the prima facie
evidence connecting the applicant to the vehicle, and the fact that the applicant
was absconding for a significant period, this Court is not satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is not guilty. The gravity of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14513
8 MCRC-16196-2026
offence outweighs the plea of parity or procedural technicality at this stage.
17. Consequently, in view of the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
and the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no merit in the present
application.
18. Accordingly, the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the
BNSS is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 5/8/2026
10:50:15 AM
