Ankit Bang Maheshwari vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the applicant's third bail application. The Court noted that the applicant's first bail application was dismissed on merits with a detailed order, and his Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. His second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn recently. The Court found that a huge commercial quantity of Onerex Cough Syrup (containing codeine phosphate) was seized from the co-accused and also from the applicant by two different police stations. The applicant had not issued any bills to the co-accused, making it impossible at this stage to conclude that the sale was to a registered medical practitioner or for therapeutic purposes. The Court emphasized the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, stating that the applicant's involvement prima facie appears in an offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Since a commercial quantity was seized and there was no material to show the applicant had not committed the offence or was unlikely to commit one while on bail, he failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in Hira Singh, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad, and Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal to support its reasoning, particularly regarding the non-exclusion of neutral substances in quantity determination and that custody period or commencement of trial are not persuasive grounds for bail under Section 37.

Facts

This is the third bail application filed by the applicant, Ankit Bang Maheshwari, under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 439 of CrPC, 1973). The applicant is seeking regular bail in relation to FIR No. 109/2024, registered on 01.02.2024 at Police Station Maihar, District Maihar, for offences under Sections 8(b), 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and Sections 5/13 of the M.P. Drugs (Control) Act, 1949. The applicant has been in detention since 06.03.2024. His first bail application was dismissed on merits on 19.12.2024. His second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.04.2025. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed his Special Leave Petition against the order dismissing his first bail application. The current application is based on the grounds of delay in trial and the period of detention.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of delay in the conclusion of the trial and his period of detention, considering his previous bail applications were dismissed on merits and by the Supreme Court. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argues that he has been in detention for approximately one year and two months, and the trial has not yet concluded. He contends that his involvement is based on the memorandum of co-accused, which he claims is neither legal nor admissible in evidence. He asserts he holds a valid license for his medical shop, "R.S. Enterprises," and is authorized to sell drugs as per Form 21-B. He relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 SC 5592, stating that conviction cannot be based solely on co-accused's memorandum without supporting evidence or recovery. He also cites other bail orders where similar grounds were considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, highlighting that the applicant's first bail application was dismissed on merits with a detailed order. They also point out that the Supreme Court has dismissed the applicant's SLP.