IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

<>

ON THE 5

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 484 of 2026

<>

SURESH YADAV

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for the applicant.

<>

Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for State of M.P.

<>

ORDER

<>

Heard on the question of admission.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this revision is

heard finally.

2. This revision is filed against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed

by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S.. Act, Katni in SC N.D.P.S. 63 of

2025.

3. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the ground that the

applicant has no connection with the alleged crime and he has been

falsely implicated. No cogent reason has been assigned for rejecting the

application for Supurdnama of the Pick Up No. M.P.-18-Z.A. 9627.

4. It is further submitted that the entire reading of the prosecution

case/charge-sheet it is clear that co- accused was carrying contraband

substance and he was travelling as a passenger to travel from Amiliya

1 CRR-484-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343

to Kamore. The applicant was unaware regarding the fact that co-

accused was carrying contraband substance, hence this on this ground

alone the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. It is further submitted that under N.D.P.S. Act read with Cr.P.C.

custody of the vehicle can be given to the owner and if it is not given

then there is possibility of damage to the vehicle or the vehicle may

become dysfunctional.

6. Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the

order of the trial court is well justified and this revision should be

dismissed.

7. It it seen that perhaps due to cut and paste the ground no.4 is

mentioned as "the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail." This

typographical error is ignored.

8. On perusal of the order of learned trial court dated 31.12.2025,

it is seen that on 31.12.2025 the first Superdnama application which was

earlier filed was not pressed. It was dismissed on the same day. Second

Superdnama application was filed on which arguments were heard by the

trial court.

9. Against the present applicant and other co- accused Badi Pardhi

a Crime No.397 of 2025 r/w Section 8/20 of N.P.D.S. Act was

registered and charge-sheet has been filed and now the case is registered

as Case No.63 of 2025.

10. Pick Up No. M.P.-18-Z.A. 9627 is registered in the name of

2 CRR-484-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343

the present applicant - Suresh Yadav.

11. As reflected from the order and arguments of learned counsel

for both the parties 18kg and 600 gram was recovered from the joint

possession of the applicant and Badi Pardhi.

12. It is seen that the trial has to take place. In the charge -sheet the

Police has indicated that both the accused persons i.e. present applicant

and other co- accused Badi Pardhi are involved in the crime under

N.D.P.S. Act as stated above.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Denash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2276 has held as under :-

33.

<>

The situation at hand may be examined with reference to the

principles enunciated by this Court in paragraphs 29 and 30 of

Bishwajit Dey (supra), wherein four scenarios were delineated

concerning the seizure of contraband from a conveyance, along with

the general approach to be adopted by Courts while considering the

question of interim release of such conveyances. Paragraphs 29 and

30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), are extracted hereinbelow for ready

reference:—

“29.

<>

Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take

place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four

scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a

conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person

<>

from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is

<>

recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the

<>

possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired

<>

by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the

<>

accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle.

<>

Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-

<>

party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without

<>

any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and

<>

transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and

<>

connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle

<>

and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the

<>

third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent

<>

would not be arrayed as an accused.

<>

3 CRR-484-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343

30.

<>

This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied

<>

in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in

<>

the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on

<>

superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-

<>

owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no

<>

allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner

<>

and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the

<>

interim on superdari

<>

subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he

would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or

he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on

the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the

vehicle needs to be confiscated.

31. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be

<>

taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial

<>

Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant.”

<>

(Emphasis Supplied)

34.

<>

Although, on a superficial reading, the present case might appear

to fall within the second scenario delineated in Bishwajit Dey

(supra), where contraband is recovered from the owner's agent

(driver) who is arrayed as an accused, however, the application of

criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or mechanical formula.

Each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and

circumstances. In the present matter, a holistic consideration of the

record reveals that the facts do not align strictly with the said

category for the following reasons:—

i-

<>

Firstly, the appellant is the lawful owner with valid documents,

and the vehicle was commercially engaged in transporting a

valuable consignment of 29,400 MT of iron sheets. It is highly

improbable to believe that he would risk both the costly vehicle and

the high value consigned goods and his business goodwill by

knowingly allowing narcotics to be transported along with the cargo.

ii-

<>

Secondly, the contraband, i.e., 6 kilograms of Ganja was

recovered from the four chargesheeted accused persons.

iii-

<>

Thirdly, the appellant was not arraigned as an accused and the

chargesheet contains no material suggesting that the appellant had

knowledge of or connived in the offence.

iv-

<>

It can thus, safely be presumed that the said contraband must

have been procured by the drivers and/or the khalasis without the

knowledge or connivance of the appellant.

35.

<>

In view of the above, while the present case may technically

correspond to the second scenario as enumerated in paragraph 29 of

Bishwajit Dey (supra), the peculiar factual matrix warrants a more

pragmatic approach. It would, therefore, be expedient in the interest

4 CRR-484-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343

of justice to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant, as

the overall circumstances clearly indicate his bonafides and absence

of any involvement in the drugs being carried in the vehicle.

36.

<>

In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal deserves

to succeed. The impugned judgment dated 20

th

December, 2024

passed by the High Court is accordingly set aside. The vehicle

bearing Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315 shall be released on

supurdagi to the appellant on such terms and conditions, which the

Special Court may impose.

14. Therefore what emerges from careful reading of the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs. State

<>

of Assam

<>

passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A. No.87 of 2025,

<>

vide order dated 7.1.2025

<>

in the first and second situation as mentioned

in sub para-29 of Para 33 in the case of Denash

<>

(supra) where owner

and driver of the vehicle is the person from whom the contraband

substance is recovered till reverse burden is not discharged by the

accused, the vehicle may not be released. Hon'ble Supreme Court has

also in the case of Denash

<>

(supra) has held that strict jacket formula

cannot be applied and each case has to be examined in the in the facts

and circumstances of the case.

15. In the case of Denash

<>

(supra) for the reasons mentioned in

para-34, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where 6 km Ganja was

recovered from four charge sheeted accused in a vehicle in which Iron -

sheets were being caried granted temporary supurdnama of the vehicle.

16. In the case of Denash

<>

(supra) as very fairly admitted by

learned counsel for the applicant owner was not driver of the vehicle

5 CRR-484-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

from whom contraband substance was recovered but in this case owner

and driver of the vehicle is the same person and is an accused.

17. It is also seen that in the case of Denash

<>

(supra) Hon'ble

Supreme Court granted temporary custody of the vehicle because

29,400 MT of iron sheets were loaded in the in the involved vehicle

whereas in the case at hand no other material except Ganja in sacks was

being carried as reflected from Annexure A-2, memorandum under

Evidence Act. Therefore facts of both the cases are different.

18. All other facts have to be established during trial by way of

cross-examination.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order dated

31.12.2025 cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly this revision

cannot be allowed and it is dismissed.

bks

6 CRR-484-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10343