Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ali Hussain @ Fajlu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
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
ON THE 16th 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 His third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20/09/2024 passed in MCRC no. 47846 of 2024.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 19:59:53NEUTRAL 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 िनदशानुसार सुनवाई क येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहे गा । (2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence ; (2) आवेदक केाई अपराध नह ं करे गा 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 को य या अ य प से लोभन, धमक या वचन नह ं दे गा, जससे ऐसा य 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) आवदे क य या अ य प से सा य के साथ छे डछाड करने का या सा ी या सा य को बहलाने-फुसलाने, दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह ं करे गा । (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 ण के संबंध म आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं . .सं./ ३४६ भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करे ग (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