Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10431
1 MCRC-13421-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13421 of 2026
IMRAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Palash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal - GA for the State.
ORDER
1. This third application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 370 of 2024 registered at Police Station- Jaora City, District- Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 8, 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Applicant is in judicial custody since 21/11/2024. Applicant's earlier two bail applications have been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30/06/2025 passed in MCRC no. 25202 of 2025 and order dated 05/01/2026 passed in MCRC no. 59271 of 2025 respectively.
2. Heard the arguments.
3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application submits that the applicant was arrested on 21/11/2024. He continues to be in custody ever since. The sample of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 17-04-2026 19:06:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10431 2 MCRC-13421-2026 narcotic contraband was forwarded for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 10/12/2024, which was received at the Laboratory on 11/12/2024. The final report was submitted without chemical analysis report from the Forensic Science Laboratory on 14/05/2025. The charges were framed on 23/06/2025. The chemical analysis report of Forensic Science Laboratory was submitted on 13/08/2025. The chemical analysis report was taken on record by the trial Court on 26/09/2025 without any supplementary charge-sheet. Thus, the cognizance and the framing of charge against the applicant without considering the chemical analysis report were erroneous. Learned counsel referring to the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Arbaz Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2020 SCC Online Delhi 2542 and the order dated 21/04/2025 passed in CRA no. 2088 of 2025 [Jabir Kha Vs. State of M.P.] contends that the applicant deserves grant of bail for the reason of incomplete final report submitted against him. Learned counsel further submits that the narcotic contraband was weighted with clothes and polythene bag. There is inconsistency regarding weight of the contraband. The applicant has undergone custody for one year, four months and fifteen days. The trial is not progressing at appropriate pace. The independent witnesses Faquir Mohd. [PW-1] and Munna Kha [PW-2] did not support the prosecution. The trial would take time to conclude. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and the dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and contends that there is no Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 17-04-2026 19:06:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10431 3 MCRC-13421-2026 material inconsistency with regard to weight of the narcotic contraband. The applicant was found in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic contraband- M.D., total quantity 56 grams, which was recovered from his possession in due compliance with the procedure. The narcotic contraband was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in compliance with the provision under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act on 07/12/2024. The chemical analysis report, although received with delay, substantiates that the narcotic contraband recovered from the possession of applicant is Mephedrone. Learned counsel further refers to 13 criminal antecedents against the applicant as mentioned in the case diary. Applicant is aged 29/ years. He is labourer by profession.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was acquitted in 12 matters and one case relating to the Arms Act is pending for trial. He has never been convicted for any offence.
7. As per the accusation on case diary, ASI Nandkishore Bairagi of the Police Station - Jaora City, District - Ratlam received secret information regarding transportation and delivery of narcotic contraband - M.D. by Imran @ Layya (applicant) on 21/11/2021. Accordingly, a raid was conducted under intimation to higher police officials. Imran was intercepted near Bahaddurapura road. On personal search of Imran in compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the narcotic contraband - M.D. Drug total quantity- 56 grams was recovered from the pocket of his full pant in a transparent plastic bag. Imran was arrested on 21/11/2024. The Police Station
- Jaora City, District - Ratlam registered FIR for offence punishable under Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 17-04-2026 19:06:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10431 4 MCRC-13421-2026 section 8, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The narcotic contraband was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class in compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act for verification and sampling. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation. The chemical analysis report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was produced before the trial Court on 13/08/2025, which reveals that the sample of the narcotic contraband contains Mephedrone (M.D.). The trial is under way. It is progressing at appropriate pace. Two seizure witnesses have been examined. Although they did not support the prosecution, but no adverse inference can be drawn with regard to veracity of prosecution merely for the reason that the seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution. Other important witnesses are yet to be examined.
8. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Sinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2011 (1) SCC 609 considered the precedents regarding compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and observes as under :
"22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the object with which right under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way of a safeguard, has been conferred on the suspect, viz. to check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimise the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies, it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. We have no hesitation in holding that in so far as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires a strict compliance. Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search. Thereafter, the suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision. As observed in Re Presidential Poll14, it is the duty of the courts to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the provision to be construed. "The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law, it is the animus imponentis, the intention of the law maker expressed in the law itself, taken as a whole." We are of the opinion Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 17-04-2026 19:06:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10431 5 MCRC-13421-2026 that the concept of "substantial compliance" with the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act introduced and read into the mandate of the said Section in Joseph Fernandez (supra) and Prabha Shankar Dubey (supra) is neither borne out from the language of sub-section (1) of Section 50 nor it is in consonance with the dictum laid down in Baldev Singh's case (supra). Needless to add that the question whether or not the procedure prescribed has been followed and the requirement of Section 50 had been met, is a matter of trial. It would neither be possible nor feasible to lay down any absolute formula in that behalf. We also feel that though Section 50 gives an option to the empowered officer to take such person (suspect) either before the nearest gazetted officer or the Magistrate but in order to impart authenticity, transparency and creditworthiness to the entire proceedings, in the first instance, an endeavour should be to produce the suspect before the nearest Magistrate, who enjoys more confidence of the common man compared to any other officer. It would not only add legitimacy to the search proceedings, it may verily strengthen the prosecution as well. (emphasis added)
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Hanif Ansari Vs. State(Govt. of NCR of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 537 referring to order in the case of Mohd. Arbaz v. State(NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2542 and Kishan Lal v. State 1989 SCC OnLine Del. 348 held as under :-
3. The point to be addressed in this matter is as to whether non-furnishing of the FSL report with the chargesheet, within the prescribed time, would entitle an accused to default bail on the ground that it would be an incomplete chargesheet without such a report. The High Court in the impugned judgment rejected the bail plea of the petitioner, holding, inter-alia:-
"9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Arbaz v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC Online Del 2542, had taken a view that the accused would not be entitled to statutory bail merely because the FSL Report was not part of the chargesheet. An appeal against the said judgment is pending before the Supreme Court.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal v. State, 1989 SCC Online Del 348, has held that it is not mandatory to file the FSL Report along with the chargesheet. The relevant observations are set out below:
"19. We thus hold that under Section 173(2) of the Code there is no mandate that a police report must enclose the document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert. In the present cases, as cognizance of the offences taken by the Magistrate was proper and valid, no order releasing the petitioners on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code was required to be passed."
11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Suleman v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC Online Del 2346, has held that non filing of the FSL Report with the chargesheet would not entitle the accused to grant of statutory bail. Relevant observations are set out below:
"14. At present, the settled law persists in the view that non filing of FSL Report with the charge sheet does not fall within the realms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C so as to consider it as "incomplete report".
In the present case although FSL Report has not been filed, however, the charge sheet was already filed on 03.03.2021 within the time period as per law. Further, the amount of quantity recovered from the accused is of commercial nature baring the accused from bail under Section 37 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 17-04-2026 19:06:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10431 6 MCRC-13421-2026 NDPS Act."
12. The aforesaid judgments were followed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hashmat Mohammadi (supra), in which the grant of statutory bail was rejected by the Coordinate Bench despite non-filling of the FSL Report with the chargesheet."
4. In the special leave petition filed by said Mohd. Arbaz [SLP (crl.) Nos.8164- 8166/2021], interim bail was granted to the petitioner therein. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan and Anr., 2024 INSC 58 dealt with the question of an incomplete chargesheet and its impact on the bail plea of an accused. It has been held and observed in this judgment:-
"23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him. Once however, a chargesheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It is also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on certain orders passed by this Court in
(i) SLP(Crl.)Nos.8164-8166/2021 (Mohd. Arbaz & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi) on 13.12.2021, (ii) SLP (Crl.) No.12200/2023 (Pankaj Gupta v. Narcotic Control Bureau) on 04.12.2023 , (iii) SLP (Crl.) No.11628/2022 (Divyas Bardewa v. Narcotics Control Bureau) on 01.05.2023 and (iv) SLP (Crl.) No.8610/2023 [Arif Khan v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi)] on 28.07.2023.
6. The lead matter on this point is the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar [SLP(Crl.) No.5724 of 2023] , which is still pending before a three-Judge Bench of this Court. The case of Mohd. Arbaz (supra) stands tagged with this matter. There are other orders also passed by this Court tagging, where similar questions of law are involved. But interim bail has not been granted in every tagged petition. It has been declined in the cases of Pabitra Narayan Pradhan v. The State (NGT) of Delhi [SLP (crl.) Diary No.43791 of 2023] , Shankar @ Shiva Maheshwar Savai v. The State of Gujarat (order dated 03.03.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.2562/2023) but in none of these cases, it has been finally determined as to whether failure on the part of the prosecution to include the FSL report along with the chargesheet in relation to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would automatically entitle the accused to default bail or not. Further, certain other factors like the quantity of the contraband articles being seized and period of incarceration were considered in the aforesaid orders while granting interim bail to the petitioner(s)/applicant(s).
8. In view of there being diversity of views of different Benches of this Court even on the question of granting interim bail, we are of the opinion that a larger Bench may decide the question as to whether failure on the part of the prosecution to include the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 17-04-2026 19:06:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10431 7 MCRC-13421-2026 FSL report pertaining to the seized contraband article(s) along with the chargesheet, within the time specified in Section 167(2) of the Code read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act, would entitle the accused to default bail or not.
10. The stage of default bail has already passed. The complicity of the applicant in alleged offence and the recovery of narcotic contraband - M.D. drug from his exclusive, active and immediate possession is prima- facie made out from the material on record. No inference can be drawn that the applicant is not involved in alleged offence and he will not commit similar offence in view of his criminal past, therefore, the interdict contained under section 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act applies against the applicant. The custody of the applicant cannot be considered as disproportionately long. The trial is progressing at appropriate pace.
11. In view of the aforestated factual scenario, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve benefit of bail. Consequently, present bail application is dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE amol Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 17-04-2026 19:06:32