- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26412 WP No. 13771 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13771 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED AYAAN AROON @ MOHAMMED AYAAN HAROON S/O AROON IQBAL @ HAROON IQBAL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.16, BENSON CROSS ROAD BINNY CRISENT APARTMENT BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE -560046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY J.C. NAGAR P.S. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPP VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 2. MUNIKRISHNA DH POLICE OFFICER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS JC NAGAR, POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CR.PC, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGESHEET DATED 09.11.2022 AT Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26412 WP No. 13771 of 2025 ANNEXURE-C FILED IN CONNECTION OF CRIME NO.93/2021 OF J.C.NAGAR PS NOW PENDING AS SPL.C.NO.463/2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE 34TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT AT BENGALURU (CCH-33) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 20(B), 20(C) AND 22(C) OF NDPS WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.03, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in Spl.C.No.463/2023 arising out of Crime No.93/2021 registered by the 1st respondent – police, pending on the file of the XXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (NDPS Special Court), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 20(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner viz., Mohammed Ayaan Aroon was arraigned as accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26412 WP No. 13771 of 2025 No.3 in Spl.C.No. 463/2023 along with 16 others, pursuant to FIR in Crime No.93/2021. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 20(b), 20(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. 4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to an order of this Court passed in order to point out that W.P.No.11823/2023 dated 06.03.2024 as against accused No.4, in view of quashment of criminal proceedings qua accused No.4, the present petitioner who is accused No.3 in Spl.C.No.463/2023 would be entitled to seek parity. 5. This Court in the case of Shiv Swaroop Vs. State of Karnataka and another – W.P.No.11823/2023 dated 06.03.2024, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.4 (in Spl.C.No.463/2023) and held as under: "The petitioner, accused No. 4, stands charged under Sections 20(b) and 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. According to the prosecution's case, on 20.06.2021, credible information led to a raid where three individuals, accused Nos.1 to 3, were caught with 950 grams of ganja. They allegedly confessed to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26412 WP No. 13771 of 2025 procuring the substance from accused Nos.4 to 6, who purportedly bought it from a Dark website. Subsequently, accused Nos.4 to 6, including the petitioner, were apprehended, and their mobile phones, laptops, and vehicle were seized. Data retrieved from the petitioner's phone allegedly indicated involvement in purchasing ganja from the Dark website. 3. Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the retrieved data does not conclusively prove the petitioner's purchase of ganja. Without physical recovery from the petitioner, prosecuting him only on the basis of a confession statement of co accused which is inadmissible in law would constitute an abuse of legal process. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. 4. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the respondent-State, counters that forensic analysis of the petitioner's phone confirmed ganja purchase via a Dark website using cryptocurrency. He argues that coupled with co-accused statements, this establishes the petitioner's involvement, and various contentions taken by the Petitioner can be considered at the time of trial. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26412 WP No. 13771 of 2025 5. Initially, accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended based on the information received. Their confession implicated accused Nos.4 to 6 in procuring ganja from the Dark website. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested, and his electronic devices were seized for forensic examination. 6. The forensic report, part of the charge sheet, revealed no incriminating data in the cloud or any associated social media accounts on the petitioner's phone. It indicated visits to the Dark website but did not conclusively prove ganja procurement. Lack of corroborating evidence renders reliance on co-accused confessions, inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, insufficient for prosecution. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh -vs- State of Tamil Nadu - (2021) 4 SCC 1 at para-158.1 has held as follows: "158.1. That the officers who are vested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26412 WP No. 13771 of 2025 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh -vs- State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, has held that, any confessional statement made to officers empowered under Section 53 cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused, except to the extent found "relevant" under Section 53A, and when corroborated in accordance with law. 9. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegation against the Petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings only on the basis of the confession statement of the co- accused will be an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.Case No.463/2023 on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.4 stands quashed." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26412 WP No. 13771 of 2025 6. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that proceedings as against accused No.4 has been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.11823/2023 and consequently, by applying the doctrine of parity, proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.3 in this petition also deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.No.463/2023 arising out of FIR in Crime No.93/2021 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, pending on the file of the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (NDPS Special Court), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 20(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act insofar as the petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12