Anticipatory Bail Rejected In NDPS Case As Accused Continues To Evade Arrest

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused in a narcotics case involving the alleged supply of commercial quantity contraband, observing that he had remained absconding for several months and that further recovery of narcotic substances could still be made from him.

Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani passed the order while hearing an application filed by Dheeraj Vyas under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of CrPC), seeking protection from arrest in connection with Crime No. 528 of 2025 registered at Harda Kotwali Police Station in Harda district. The case has been registered for offences under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Abhishek Rathore, assisted by Advocate Aman Dawra, argued that Vyas had been implicated solely on the basis of a memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that there was no independent material linking him to the alleged offence. The defence contended that mere disclosure statements of co-accused persons could not justify denial of pre-arrest bail, particularly when no recovery had been made from the applicant.

To support the plea, the applicant relied on earlier orders passed by coordinate benches of the High Court, including decisions in M.Cr.C. No. 29768 of 2025 and M.Cr.C. No. 9867 of 2024, where anticipatory bail had been granted in comparable circumstances. It was argued that the present case deserved similar treatment and that the applicant should be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Opposing the application, Panel Lawyer Pramod Chourasiya, appearing for the State, submitted that the facts of the case were materially different from those relied upon by the applicant. The State informed the Court that during the investigation, a co-accused had initially named another individual, Dheeraj Patidar, in his memorandum. However, in a subsequent memorandum dated December 5, 2025, the co-accused specifically disclosed the name of Dheeraj Vyas as the person from whom the contraband had been purchased.

The prosecution further argued that ever since his name surfaced during the investigation, the applicant had been evading arrest and had remained absconding. According to the State, the police had been actively searching for him but had been unable to apprehend him. The prosecution also maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary because further contraband material and other relevant information could still be recovered from the applicant.

After hearing both sides and examining the case diary, the Court found merit in the State’s objections. Justice Vani noted that the applicant had continuously remained unavailable to the investigating agency and that material on record indicated his involvement through the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

The Court observed that the case involved allegations relating to commercial quantity contraband, a factor that carries significant weight under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. It also accepted the prosecution’s contention that recovery proceedings were still pending and that important information could emerge following the applicant’s arrest.

Distinguishing the judgments cited by the defence, the Court held that the facts of the present case stood on a different footing. The order records, “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.”

The Court further noted, “There is material on record showing that other contraband material may be seized from the present applicant along with other important information.”

In view of these findings, the High Court concluded that it was not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant and rejected the plea for anticipatory bail. “Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected,” the Court ordered.

Case Title: Dheeraj Vyas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: June 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani