MP High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To NDPS Accused Who Allegedly Remained Absconding

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused in a narcotics case involving commercial quantity contraband, holding that his continued absence from the investigation and the possibility of further recovery weighed against granting him protection from arrest.

Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani passed the order while dealing with an application filed by Dheeraj Vyas, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered at Harda Kotwali Police Station under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

According to the prosecution, the case arose from the seizure of a commercial quantity of contraband. During the investigation, a co-accused allegedly disclosed the source of the narcotic substance through a memorandum statement. While an earlier statement referred to another individual, a subsequent memorandum recorded in December 2025 allegedly identified Dheeraj Vyas as the person from whom the contraband had been procured.

The applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the case against him rested solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was submitted that no independent evidence had been produced linking him to the alleged offence and that no recovery had been made from his possession.

The defence also relied upon previous decisions of coordinate benches of the High Court where anticipatory bail had been granted in similar circumstances. On that basis, it was contended that the applicant deserved the same relief.

The State opposed the plea, contending that the applicant's conduct distinguished his case from those relied upon by the defence. It was argued that after his name surfaced during the investigation, he continuously evaded arrest and remained unavailable to the investigating agency despite efforts to trace him.

The prosecution further maintained that custodial interrogation was still necessary because investigators expected additional contraband and other relevant evidence to be recovered. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the involvement of commercial quantity narcotics, the State urged the Court not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.

After examining the case diary and hearing both sides, the High Court accepted the State's objections. The Court noted that the applicant had remained absconding for a considerable period and that the investigation materials indicated his alleged connection with the supply chain of the contraband substance.

The Court also observed that the possibility of further recovery and the need for custodial interrogation could not be ruled out at this stage. Since the case involved offences under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act relating to commercial quantity narcotics, these factors assumed greater significance while considering a request for pre-arrest bail.

Distinguishing the precedents cited by the applicant, the Court held that the factual circumstances were materially different and did not justify extending similar relief. Finding no grounds to grant anticipatory bail, the Court dismissed the application.

The ruling underscores that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity contraband, courts may be reluctant to grant anticipatory bail where the accused is alleged to have avoided investigation and where recovery proceedings are still pending.