Dheeraj Vyas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar, J

This first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No. 528 of 2025 registered at Police Station Hardwa Kotwali, District Harda (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 8/22, 8/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. The Applicant is apprehending his arrest has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the present applicant is apprehending his arrest under section 8/22 read with section of 8/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this case only on the basis of memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act, while no other material is available against him. He relied upon the order dated 7th July, 2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C No. 29768/2025 (Annexure A/2) and order dated 11th February, 2025 passed in M.Cr.C No. 9867/2024 (Annexure A/3). He further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have given benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant may kindly be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that initially in memorandum of co-accused the name of Dheeraj Patidar was revealed but later on in the second memorandum dated 05.12.2025, it is revealed that the name of accused as Dheeraj Vyas from whom he purchased the contraband article. Since, then the police is searching the present applicant, but he is absconding and could not be arrested till date. It is further submitted that after his arrest other contraband material is to be recovered from him, the present case is related to seizure of commercial quantity of contraband material. Therefore, in these factual circumstance, the case is distinguishable and he has prayed for rejection of this application for grant of anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the present applicant is continuously absconding. His name is clearly revealed in the memorandum dated 05.12.2025 by other co-accused person, who have bought contraband material from the present applicant. There is material on record showing that other contraband material may be seized from the present applicant along with other important information. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from the case cited by learned counsel for the applicant. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.