Rajkumar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the applicant's second bail application. It considered the rival submissions, the case diary, and the applicant's criminal antecedents, noting that the details provided by the CBI in its reply were not rebutted by the applicant. The Court found that the applicant's alleged involvement in the smuggling of red sandalwood, coupled with his criminal history and potential involvement in an organized racket using forged GST/TIN documents, made it unsuitable to grant bail at this juncture. The Court reasoned that the evidence presented, including the un-rebutted criminal antecedents and the nature of the alleged offense, weighed against granting bail. The applicant was granted liberty to renew his bail prayer after the material witnesses are examined in the Trial Court.

Facts

This is the applicant's second bail application before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore. The applicant, Rajkumar, is implicated in Crime No. 454/2020, registered at Police Station M.P. Government, Forest Range Officer, Dhamnod, District Dhar. The alleged offences relate to the illegal transportation of 504 pieces of red sandalwood, weighing 15,530.55 kg, under various sections of The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, The Indian Forest Act, 1927, and The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The applicant has been in custody since September 19, 2025. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on January 7, 2026, with liberty to file a fresh one detailing criminal antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail given his alleged involvement in the illegal transportation of red sandalwood and his criminal antecedents? (Section 483 of B.N.S.S./439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant claims to be falsely implicated based solely on disclosure memos of co-accused. - Regarding criminal antecedents, only one case (Crime No. 107/2016, Police Station VSR, Andhra Pradesh) is pending, and the applicant's name is not in three other cases mentioned by the Trial Court. - The applicant has been in custody since September 19, 2025, and the trial is likely to take a long time. Respondent's (CBI) Arguments: - The applicant's criminal antecedents and active involvement in the case do not warrant bail. - The investigation suggests the applicant is part of an organized inter-state smuggling racket using forged GST/TIN documents and fake firms. - The FIR was registered in 2020, and the applicant evaded arrest until now.