Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashwin Sharma Alias Ashiwan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7611
1 MCRC-3802-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 20 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3802 of 2026
ASHWIN SHARMA ALIAS ASHIWAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Jain - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma - G.A. for the State.
ORDER
1] They are heard and perused the case diary.
2] This is the applicant's sixth bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as he is implicated in connection with Crime No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Daloda, District Mandsaur (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 8/15 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in custody since 03/03/2024. His earlier bail applications have already been dismissed by this Court.
3] The allegation against the applicant is of his involvement in the aforesaid offence wherein 115 kg poppy straw has been seized from a car.
4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is lodged in jail since 03/03/2024 i.e. more than two years, and not even a single witness has been examined in the trial Court till date and the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. Hence, it is submitted that the application deserves to be allowed on the ground of period of incarceration, and delay in the trial, in which the applicant had no part to play.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 20-03-2026 16:31:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7611 2 MCRC-3802-2026 5] Counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4648 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 in which applicant was released on bail on the ground of period of custody, and has also observed that right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India overrides the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)
(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In the case of Ankur Chaudhary (supra), the applicant spent more than two years in incarceration, and only four witnesses were examined, whereas the application for bail was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that only investigating officer is yet to be examined, and his application was also rejected by the High Court. Counsel has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4169 of 2023 dated 13.07.2023 wherein 247 kg cannabis ( Ganja) was recovered from the petitioner, and the petitioner was one of the occupants of the truck, and was arrested on the spot, wherein he was in custody for more than three and half years, and there were no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. In the said case only one witness, out of 19 witnesses, was examined, and the Supreme Court has again taken the note of the fact that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, overrides the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
6] Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that looking to the huge quantity seized from the applicant, no case for grant of bail is made out.
7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case-diary, it is apparent that the applicant was found in possession of 115 kg Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 20-03-2026 16:31:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7611 3 MCRC-3802-2026 poppy straw, the commercial quantity of which is 50 kg, and in the trial, as per the status report sent by the learned Judge of the trial Court, till date not a single witness has been examined, only because the prosecution has not been able to produce its witnesses despite issuance of bailable warrants since last one year.
8] So far as the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary (supra) ; and Rabi Prakash (supra) ; are concerned, it would be apt to refer to the same at this juncture. In the case of Ankur Chaudhary (supra) wherein the accused had spent more than two years of custody, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have considered the facts and all attending circumstances including the period of custody and also the previous orders where this Court while rejecting the bail was of the view that after the panch witness depose, fresh recourse may be taken. 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."
(Emphasis supplied) 9] In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra) wherein the accused has spent more than three and half years of custody, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.
4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."
(Emphasis supplied) 10] In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, taking into account the period of incarceration, which is more than two years.
11] Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 20-03-2026 16:31:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7611 4 MCRC-3802-2026 application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
12] Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of . C.c. as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE krjoshi Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 20-03-2026 16:31:43