KESHAV SEN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is first bail application under Sec. 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

(2.) The applicant has been arrested on 18/1/2026 by Police Station-Fatehgarh, District Guna in connection with Crime No.12/2026, registered in relation to the offence punishable under Ss. 8/20, 29 of NDPS Act.

(3.) As per prosecution story, 1.930 kilograms of the narcotic substance ganja was seized by the police from the joint and conscious possession of co-accused Akhlaq and Inderjeet while they were transporting the same. Further, from the possession of co-accused Inderjeet, the police seized at the spot a motorcycle without registration number, bearing chassis number MD2B63AX8RPF37978, which was being used for the transportation of the said narcotic substance. It is further revealed that in the memorandum statements of the applicant/accused and the co-accused persons recorded under Sec. 23(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a clear disclosure regarding the purchase and sale of the narcotic substance ganja. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that no contraband has been seized from the possession, conscious or otherwise, of the present applicant, and he was not apprehended at the spot from where the alleged recovery of ganja has been shown. It is further submitted that the implication of the applicant is based solely on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which are inadmissible in evidence as against the present applicant and cannot form the sole basis for denial of bail. The applicant has been in custody since 18/1/2025 and further custodial interrogation is not required, as the investigation is substantially complete. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Guna, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. It is further submitted that co-accused Bablu Dhakad has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dtd. 29/1/2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4361/2026 and the case of present applicant is similar to that of co-accused. Hence, it was prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity also.