2025:UHC:4659 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 560 of 2025 06 June, 2025 Ramesh Sahani --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the FIR No.234 of 2025 dated 20.05.2025, under Section 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act, registered with Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (annexure no.1 to the writ petition). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2025, the complainant namely, S.I. Kaushal Bhakuni lodged an FIR against two named person with the averments that the complainant along with other police party was on patrolling duty along with private vehicle and when the police party went to Tel Mill Chowki where they met Sub- Inspector-Devendra Mehta who also joined the police team and started checking near to the Railway Crossing. Thereafter, the police party seen one vehicle coming from the side of Bhoora Rani, but seeing the police party, the driver tried to flee from the spot, but the police party stopped the vehicle along with two accused persons; made enquiry from both the accused persons and also searched them personally but they were not giving any satisfactory reply. The said vehicle was searched from which police party recovered 47.57 kg. Ganja. Thereafter, 1 2025:UHC:4659 they were arrested. They told the police that the contraband was bought from the Orissa in association with Ramesh Sahani the (petitioner). 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime; has no concern with the incident and there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He further submits that since the only evidence available against the petitioner is the confessional statement of the arrested accused persons, which is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 23 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), therefore, the said confessional statement cannot be read as an evidence against the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that from the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that petitioner is involved in the alleged crime which is a heinous offence against the society. Thus, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. From perusal of the first information report, it transpires that the allegations made in the first information report are very serious and discloses commission of offence. Hence, this Court does not want to interfere in the impugned FIR by exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.06.2025 AK 2