Vijay Sahu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Ramkumar Choubey, J

Heard on this first application under Section 483 of BNSS filed on behalf of applicant for bail in connection with Crime No.417/2024 registered by P.S.-Chorhata, District - Rewa for the offence under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25, 25A, 29, 8A/27B of NDPS Act and section 5/13 of Drugs Control Act. The applicant is in jail since 30.05.2025.

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the State submits that the applicant has a criminal past showing as many as 36 criminal cases registered against him but the applicant's application does not describe the particulars of all the criminal cases registered against him.

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the applicant does not have knowledge about registration of 36 criminal cases against him. He further submits that even in the charge-sheet, the details of all criminal cases registered against the applicant have not been enclosed. More precisely, he submits that the applicant does not have requisite source to gather such information and therefore particulars of only known eight criminal cases have been mentioned in the memo of application. Even, learned counsel for the applicant has not shown his willingness to amend the bail application so as to inserted all requisite particulars of criminal antecedents in the memo of this bail application and rather he prayed for deciding the bail application.

At this juncture, it is apposite to go-through the legal position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zeba Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 188 has held that it is obligatory for the applicant/accused to disclose his criminal past and furnish particulars of criminal cases registered against him. In the case at hand, although, the applicant has given particulars of eight criminal cases registered against him but as revealed by the learned counsel respondent/State, there are 36 criminal cases in total registered against the applicant in relation to other offences including NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution case, 2400 bottles of Onrex Cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate was seized from the conscious possession of the applicant and co-accused persons.

Considering the quantity of contraband and the criminal antecedents, which shows that several cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.