Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Jawarkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31234
1 MCRC-11866-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 22 nd OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11866 of 2026
SUMIT JAWARKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - G.A. for respondent/State.
ORDER
This fifth application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023, for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.205 of 2025 registered
at Police Station – Barela, District – Jabalpur (M.P.) for offence punishable under
Section(s) 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985. The applicant is in judicial custody since
13.03.2025. After rejection of the fourth bail application, seizure witnesses
Govind Chakarvarty PW-2& Umesh Sonkar PW-3 have been examined on
16.01.2026.
2. The particulars of his previous bail applications are as under :-
M.Cr.C. NO. STATUS OF DATE OF
S.NO. APPLICATION APPLICATION ORDER
Dismissed as
1. Ist Bail 15445/2025
withdrawn 09.04.2025
Dismissed as
2. IInd Bail 28056/2025
withdrawn
03.09.2025
3. IIIrd Bail 28309/2025 Bail rejected 03.09.2025
Withdraw with
4. IVth Bail 51310/2025
liberty
08.12.2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31234
2 MCRC-11866-2026
3. Heard the arguments.
4. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned
in the application, submits that the applicant has just attained majority and he has
been falsely implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of suspicion. No
offence, as alleged, is committed by the present applicant. There is non-
compliance of due procedure for search and seizure. The final report was
submitted on completion of investigation. Only three witnesses could be examined
till date. Independent seizure witnesses Govind Chakravarty PW-2 and Umesh
Sonkar PW-3 did not support the prosecution. There is no likelihood of tampering
with the remaining evidence by the applicant for the reason that the applicant is
not capable of influencing the witnesses. Jail incarceration without proper progress
in trial is causing hardship to the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the
trial.
6. Learned counsel submits that applicant is languishing in jail since
13.03.2025 and 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31234
3 MCRC-11866-2026
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 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)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31234
4 MCRC-11866-2026
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
i n 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 order dated 22.05.2025, passed by this court
in M.Cr.C. No.22213/2025(Vikash Vs. The State 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).
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the
ground of gravity of alleged offence and submits that it is a case where substantial
quantity of narcotic contraband – Cannabis (Ganja) was recovered and seized from
the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Vijay Bairagi. However, after
going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31234
5 MCRC-11866-2026
reported against the applicant. The applicant was aged around 18 years, he is a
labourer by profession.
8. According to the accusation on case diary, on 13.03.2025, Inspector
Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma of the P.S. Barela, District Jabalpur intercepted an
Apache motor cycle during routine vehicle checking. The co-accused Vijay
Bairagi was driving the motor cycle whereas the applicant Sumit Jawarkar was
pillon rider. Sumit Jawarkar was carrying a black color shoulder bag. On search of
the shoulder bag, narcotic contraband Ganja (cannabis)- total quantity of 11 kgs
618 grams was recovered. The narcotic contraband Ganja was seized from the
joint possession of Vijay Bairagi and Sumit Jawarkar (applicant). Both the
accused were arrested on the spot for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20
of the NDPS Act. The trial is underway. The matter relates to intermediate
quantity of narcotic contraband Ganja. The applicant has already undergone
custody of 1 year and 03 months. The veracity of prosecution, due compliance of
the procedure and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be
determined after evidence in the trial. Only three prosecution witnesses including
two seizure witnesses could be examined out of 15 enlisted witnesses. The trial
will take time to conclude.
9. In the case of Sheikh J aved 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
5 0 , 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 bailSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31234
6 MCRC-11866-2026
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.”
10. It is pertinent to mention here that these observations relates to the
offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967.
11. 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, 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. ”
12. As informed, the applicant is young aged about 18 years and is still
dependent on family and survives on occasional labour work. Considering these
aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of
any criminal antecedents, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31234
7 MCRC-11866-2026
there appears to be no likelihood of recidivism or tampering with the evidence or
influencing the remaining witnesses by the applicant. The applicant has been in
custody almost for one year and three months. The trial is not progressing at an
appropriate pace. It will take inordinate time to conclude. There appears to be no
compelling reason to continue prolonged incarceration of the young applicant.
However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present application
only.
13. Considering the rival contentions 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.
14. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant – Sumit Jawarkar 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:312348 MCRC-11866-2026
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 ।
15. 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.
16. 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
Priya.P
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 23-04-2026
17:48:35
