Bade Guru v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal

: Mr. Ankit Kumar Sharma, Adv., for For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 29/07/2025 Order

1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 347/2024 registered at Police Station Pragpura, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of Seizure Officer as well as recovery witnesses. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:28769] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-9478/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is serious lapses on the part of the prosecution. Counsel submits that admittedly, alleged recovery was made on 18.06.2024 however, inventory has been prepared on 11.11.2024. Counsel submits that despite the fact that samples were drawn on

11.11.2024, same was not deposited in the FSL immediately. Counsel submits that when charge-sheet was prepared, it was observed that investigation is pending for depositing samples in the FSL. Counsel submits that receipt of deposition of samples has also not been annexed with the charge-sheet, but it appears from the factual report that the samples were deposited in the FSL on

11.12.2024. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration. Counsel contends [2025:RJ-JP:28769] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-9478/2025] that petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2024 and as such he has suffered incarceration of about more than a year. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that commercial quantity of contraband i.e., poppy husk weighing 74 kg has been recovered in this matter therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

6. I have considered the contentions. Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation.

7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, especially the fact that samples were drawn in this case after five months of the alleged recovery and same was deposited in the FSL after a delay of one month, as also the fact that petitioner does not have criminal antecedents of similar [2025:RJ-JP:28769] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-9478/2025] nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application.

8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Jogendra Pal S/o Mahendra Pal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

9. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in second week of every month in the concerned police station.

10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

11. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. [2025:RJ-JP:28769] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-9478/2025]

12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

13. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. MADAN/236 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J