Nandram @ Nandkishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 08-04-2026

<div> 1 MCRC-29-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR th ON THE 8 OF APRIL, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29 of 2026 NANDRAM @ NANDKISHORE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance: Shri Sy. Fardin Meer - Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Viraj Godha - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. ORDER As per the status report dated 18.02.2026 of the trial Court, no prosecution witnesses out of 16 enlisted witnesses could be examined. The trial Court states that the trial would take almost 1 to 2 years to conclude considering the pendency of criminal cases. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam had reported that on an average of 4 to 5 witnesses are examined during the day by the concerned Court. It is unfortunate state of affairs that no witness is examined till date, despite framing of charges on 06.08.2025 and the applicant is incarcerated for more than 1 year and 6 months. Apparently, the concerned Court is examining very limited number of witness on an average. 2. This second application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.675 of 2024 registered at Police Station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District - Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM 2 MCRC-29-2026 Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section (s) 8/15 of NDPS Act and Section 238 BNS, 2023. The applicant is in judicial custody since 14.11.2024. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06/10/2025 passed in MCRC no. 33026 of 2025. 3.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 is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the present applicant. The narcotic contraband was not recovered from active and conscious possession of applicant. There is non-compliance of due procedure for search and seizure. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant. Jail incarceration without 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 14.11.2024 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM 3 MCRC-29-2026 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM 4 MCRC-29-2026 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 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. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM 5 MCRC-29-2026 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 commercial quantity of narcotic contraband - Poppy straw was recovered and seized from the possession of the applicant. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant. The applicant is aged around 25 years, he is an agriculturist by profession. 8. According to the accusation on case diary, on 14.11.2024, S.I. Jasrajsingh Chandel of the P.S. Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam intercepted Nandram @ Nandkishore who was driving his black colour honda passion motor cycle without registration number to verify the secret information. Two plastic sacks was found tied on the vehicle. On search of the bags, contraband (poppy straw) - total quantity of 55 Kgs. 350 grams were recovered. Applicant was arrested on the spot. He is in custody ever since. The trial is underway. No prosecution witnesses out of 16 enlisted witnesses could be examined. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial. 9. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 534, the Supreme Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM 6 MCRC-29-2026 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. 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, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM 7 MCRC-29-2026 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 has the responsibility of his dependent family. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of substantial criminal past and previous conviction for any offence, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant, 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 six 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 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 - Nandram @ Nandkishore shall be released on bail in connection with the Crime as mentioned in second 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM 8 MCRC-29-2026 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 िनद शानुसार सुनवाई क येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहेगा । (2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature; (2) आवेदक समान कृित का केाई अपराध नह $ं करेगा 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 /य01 को य2 या अ य2 3प से , , लोभन धमक या वचन नह $ं देगा जससे ऐसा /य01 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) आवदेक य2 या अ य2 3प से सा 8 य के साथ छेडछाड करने का या सा 2ी या - , सा 2य* को बहलाने फुसलाने दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह $ं करेगा । (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) , 0वचारण के दौरान उप थत गवाह * से पर $2ण के संबंध म % आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं. / , 2023 .सं. ३४६ भारतीय नाग +रक सुर 2ा सं -हता के ावधान* का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन Cत करेगा । 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 sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 4/9/2026 12:58:23 PM</div>