IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL

<>

ON THE 27

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55263 of 2025

<>

BIHARI LAL GUPTA

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER

<>

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of

BNSS for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No. 391/2025 registered at

Police Station - Jaithri, District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offence punishable

under Section 8/20B of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has been arrested on

12.09.2025.

2.

<>

As per the prosecution story, police seized 12.285 grams of ganja

from the joint possession of applicant and co-accused, therefore, the

aforesaid offence has been registered against him.

3.

<>

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent

and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since

12.09.2025. It is also submitted that FSL report has not been received. The

procedure under Section 52-A of NDPS Act was complied with after a delay

13 days. It is further submitted that seizure memo does not mentioned that

1 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

where the applicant had kept the bag at the time of search. It is further

submitted that the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the

applicant, which is mandatory under Article 22(1) of Constitution of

India. There is violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and

detention is illegal on this ground also, applicant is entitled to be released on

bail. Applicant is in custody since 09.06.2025. He has placed reliance upon

the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mihir Rajesh Shah

<>

Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025).

<>

Trial will

take time to conclude, hence, it is prayed that applicant may be released on

bail.

4.

<>

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed grant

of bail to the applicant and submits that applicant was having knowledge of

his arrest and he was well aware of the fact that contraband has been seized

from him and measured in front of him. The intention behind furnishing the

ground of arrest is that accused should know why he is being arrested. In this

case, applicant was well aware that contraband articles has been seized from

his possession and he knows the consequences of possessing such

contraband articles. When applicant was arrested, police has informed him

that for which offence he has been arrested. The reliance placed by the

learned counsel for the applicant in the aforesaid cases of is not applicable in

this case as the facts and circumstances of this case different from the

aforesaid cited cases. It is submitted that applicant knew that why he has

been arrested therefore at the time of deciding the bail application before the

trial Court, the question regarding ground of arrest was not raised by the

2 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

applicant. Applicant has criminal record of five cases, out of which four

cases are of a similar nature bearing Crime No.294/19, Crime No.258/23,

Crime No.330/2021 and Crime No.391/25. One case is under the Excise Act

bearing Crime No.322/25. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released

on bail.

5.

<>

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

<>

In this case, on behalf of the present applicant, it is argued that

applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of non-filing of FSL report

along with the chargesheet.

7.

<>

It is pertinent to mention here that in recent judgment of Supreme

Court delivered in the case of CBI. Vs. Kapil Wadhawan 2024 SCC OnLine

<>

SC 66

<>

, wherein it was held as under:

"22. In view of the above settied legal position, there

remains no shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the

report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various

details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report

under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon

investigation into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer

has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to

inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being

sent to the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with

all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by

Section 175 (5). As settled in the afore-stated case, it is not

necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated.

3 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

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."

4 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

8.

<>

Though in cases of State of Haryana Vs. Dildar Ram @ Dari, CRM-

M25600-2021, Krishan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, CRR - 755/2021, Bablu

Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

631/2024, Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India, M.Cr.C. No. 39524/2022,

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India, M.Cr.C. No. 38897/2022,

Pradeep Kumar Vs. Union of India, M.Cr.C. No. 48460/2022, Ajit Singh

alias Jeeta and another Vs. State of Punjab, Cr.R. No. 4659/2015 and

Amanpreet Kaur @ Preeti (IN JC) Vs. State, Cri. Rev. P. 471/2023, the

accused person has been enlarged on interim bail/bail by the Hon'ble Apex

Court/High Court.

9.

<>

It is pertinent to mention here that, interim bail has been declined by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CBI. Vs. Kapil Wadhawan (supra),

Pabitra Narayan Pradhan Vs. The State (NGT) of Delhi (SLP (crI.) Diary

No. 43791 of 2023), Shankar @ Shiva Maheshwar Savai Vs. The State of

Gujarat (order dated 03.03.2023 in SLP (CrI) No.2562/2023)

10

<>

. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground

for grant of bail on the basis of incomplete charge sheet to the present

applicant.

11.

<>

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that

grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant at the time of his

arrest and thus, he should be granted bail, is also unmerited. It is to be noted

that in the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act served upon the applicant, it

was specifically mentioned that the raiding team was in receipt of

information that applicant had kept ganja. Thus, prima facie, it cannot be

5 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

held that the applicant herein was not made aware as to why and on what

ground he had been arrested in this case. This Court's attention has also been

drawn to the judgment dated 14.08.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan: 2025 INSC 979

<>

wherein it has been held

as under:

" 78.The final word: The true test to ascertain whether discretion

has been judiciously exercised or not is to see whether the court

has been able to strike a balance between the personal liberty of

the accused and the interest of the State, in other words, the

societal interests. Each bail application should be decided in the

facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the various

factors germane to the well settled principles of grant or refusal of

bail. In the words of Philip Stanhope, “Judgment is not upon all

occasions required, but discretion always is..

79. In the result all these appeals succeed and are allowed. The

impugned orders of bail passed by the High Court are hereby set

aside.

20. In the present case, the High Court, by the impugned order,

enlarged the respondents on bail, primarily relying on a set of

factual and legal findings. However, a closer examination of these

findings reveals serious infirmities that warranting interference.

We shall discuss the same in detail.

20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself,

constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.

20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents – accused

contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest were

not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating Article 22

(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C (now Section 47 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). This submission,

however, is devoid of merit.

20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that “no person

who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being

informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor

6 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a

legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C.

requires that “every police officer or other person arresting any

person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full

particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds

for such arrest.

20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates

that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest

– but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon

written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have

clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is

sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.

20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana22, it was reiterated

that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the

arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing.

Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra

Pradesh 23 , it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a

warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance.

Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written,

individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all

circumstances. 2025 SCC Online SC 456 2025 INSC 768.

20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent

judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when

examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written

grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it

results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to

defend.

20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the alleged

procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the

gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the existence of

a prima facie case. It noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in

the remand orders about service of memo of grounds of arrest

(para 45); the arrest memos were allegedly template-based and not

personalised (para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated that they

were present at the time of arrest or had signed the memos (para

48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India24 and Prabir

Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras

43, 49 – 50) that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve

7 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

detailed, written, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately

after arrest was a violation entitling the accused to bail.

20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records

clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for

their arrest. They were legally (2024) 7 SCC 576 represented from

the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an

immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No

material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice

was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of

demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable

defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated

above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while

overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and

the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal

and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on

materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach

adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that

procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice,

do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to

bail.

20.2. Courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of

the case at the bail stage."

12.

<>

On due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is found that applicant

was aware that contraband articles "Ganja" has been seized from his

possession and he knows the consequences of possessing contraband articles.

Police has also informed applicant that for which offence he has been

arrested. No material has been placed on record to establish that any

prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. Total 12.285 of

Ganja were seized from the possession of present applicant and co-accused.

Applicant has criminal antecedents of four cases of a similar nature, which

shows his repeated involvement in narcotics-related offences.

8 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148

(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

13.

<>

Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

14.

<>

Accordingly, this MCRC stands dismissed.

vai

9 MCRC-55263-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7148