Ali Hussain @ Fajlu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
1 MCRC-59262-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
th
ON THE 16 OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59262 of 2025
ALI HUSSAIN @ FAJLU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Archana Maheshwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Surendra Gupta GA for the State.
ORDER
1. As per the status report, out 23 enlisted prosecution witnesses,
only two (2) prosecution witnesses have been examined. 21 prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined. The trial Court states that the trial would
take two to three years to conclude considering the pendency of criminal
cases.
2. This sixth application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.
862 of 2023 registered at Police Station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District -
Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 18, 22 and 29 of
NDPS Act and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, as also sections 14 and
15 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Surakshya Adhiniyam. Applicant is in
judicial custody since 19/12/2023.
3. His first application for grant of temporary bail for 15 days was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
2 MCRC-59262-2025
allowed vide order dated 11/03/2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8428 of 2024.

His second application for grant of temporary bail for 45 days was
allowed vide order dated 07/08/2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 23317 of 2024.
His third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
20/09/2024 passed in MCRC no. 47846 of 2024. His 4th bail application was
dismissed in default vide order dated 13/10/2025 passed in MCRC no. 22821
of 2025 and his 5th application for grant of temporary bail for 10 days was
allowed vide order dated 03/11/2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 48534 of 2025.
4. Heard the argument.
5. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
6. 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 merely on suspicion. The narcotic contraband was not
seized from active and conscious possession of the applicant. No offence, as
alleged, is committed by the applicant. T h e independent seizure
witnesses Shokat Noori (PW1) and Jafar (PW2) did not support the
prosecution. There is no likelihood of tampering with the remaining evidence
by the applicant. The trial would take time to conclude. Co-accused Mujaffar,
Munavvar Khan and Aasif @ Usman have been extended benefit of bai by
co-ordinate Bench of this Courtl. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the
applicant and the dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in
further trial. Learned counsel further submits that the prolonged custody is
anathema to the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed by Article
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
3 MCRC-59262-2025
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 the
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
i n 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
4 MCRC-59262-2025
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 P etition(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
orders passed by Coordinate Benches of this court, order dated 22.05.2025
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
5 MCRC-59262-2025
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. Learned counsel further refers to
12 criminal antecedents against the applicant as mentioned in the case diary.
Applicant is aged around 45 years and is an Agriculturist by profession.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant was sentenced to imprisonment of TRC and fine in two matters
related to Crime nos. 257 of 2006 and 27 of 2006. Applicant was acquitted
in other matters related to Crime nos. 61/2017, 124/2011, 194/2010,
199/2007 and 52/2015. In two matters related to Crime nos. 78/2022 and
273/2022, he has been extended benefit of bail. In another matter, FIR at
Crime no. 25/2022 has been quashed vide judgment dated 20/11/2023.
Khatma report has been submitted in the matter relating to Crime no.
78/2023 on 14/08/2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
6 MCRC-59262-2025
9. According to the material available on case diary, applicant Ali

Hussain was found in possession of 2 kg 800 grams opium, 62 kg
Dodachura, 140 grams MD narcotic drug and 12 bore two guns and
cartridges. The Police Station - Industrial Area, Jaora registered FIR for
offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 18, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act and
sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, as also sections 14 and 15 of the
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Surakshya Adhiniyam against the applicant.
Applicant was arrested on 19/12/2023. He is in custody ever since. The trial
is underway. The independent seizure witnesses Shokat Noori (PW1) and
Jafar (PW2) did not support the prosecution. Only two witnesses could be
examined out of 23 enlisted witnesses. As reported, the trial would take
considerable time to conclude. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of
the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the
trial.
10. In the case of Sheikh Javed 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 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
part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
7 MCRC-59262-2025
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.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that these observations relate to the
offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967.
12. 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
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.
13. As informed, the applicant has the responsibility of dependent
family. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of
fleeing from justice. The applicant has been in custody for almost two years
and three months. The trial is not progressing at an appropriate pace. It will
take 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.
14. 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. however, on
stringent conditions in view of the criminal antecedents. Thus, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
8 MCRC-59262-2025
application is allowed.

15. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant-Ali Hussain shall be
released on bail in connection with Crime, as mentioned in first paragraph of
this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac only) with one 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 िनद शानुसार सुनवाई क  येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहेगा ।
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence ;
(2)
आवेदक 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 .य/0 को य1 या अ य1 2प से लोभन
,
धमक  या वचन नह "ं देगा जससे ऐसा .य/0 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 य1 या अ य1 2प से सा 7 य के साथ छेडछाड करने का या सा 1ी या सा 1य) 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) , /
/वचारण के दौरान उप थत गवाह ) से पर "1ण के संबंध म $ आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं. .सं. ३४६
, 2023

भारतीय नाग *रक सुर 1ा सं ,हता के ावधान) का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन Bत करेग
(6) The applicant shall mark his presence before the SHO, P.S.- Industrial Area, Jaora, District.
Ratlam (M.P.) on every Saturday of the month till conclusion of trial. A copy of this order be
forwarded to the concerned SHO for compliance with the case diary.
16. 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.
17. The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the
personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7150
9 MCRC-59262-2025
any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he/she had

explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:59:53