1 2026:CGHC:6689-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 390 of 2026 Sheikh Javed S/o Late Sheikh Israel Aged About 38 Years R/o Premnagar Gali No. 06, Gondia Road, Balaghat (M.P.) (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned In Chargesheet Page No. 16 And Rightly Mentioned In Page No. 179) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aakash Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Aakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.06 17:44:03 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and further be pleased to set-aside/quashed the final report submitted by challan No. 266/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Act in FIR No. 1004/2024 registered in police station Civil Line, Bilaspur, cognizance order dated 16.04.2025 along with the charges framed on dated 17.06.2025 under Section 21, 22, 29 NDPS Act with entire proceedings in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 22 of 2025 pending in the Court learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 26.09.2024, Police Station Civil Line received information from an informant that one Kalpana Kurre, along with a child in conflict with law, was allegedly engaged in illegal sale of narcotic and psychotropic substances. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid and seized 296 tablets of Nitrazepam from Kalpana Kurre and 600 tablets of Alprazolam from the child in conflict with law. Consequently, FIR No. 924/2024 was registered against them. It is submitted that during investigation, on the basis of memorandum statement of Kalpana Kurre, co-accused 3 Godavari Kurre @ Ginni Jangade was arrested. The police also seized a photocopy of the bank statement of account No. 100047998667 of Equitas Bank for the period from 01.01.2024 to 26.09.2024. On the basis of the said bank statement and memorandum statement of co- accused Godavari Kurre, the present petitioner was arrested on 26.10.2024 on allegations relating to alleged financial transactions connected with illegal drug trafficking. It is contended that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since then. It is further submitted that during pendency of Criminal Case No. 16447/2024 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, another incident was reported on 21.10.2024 wherein the police allegedly seized 150 ampoules of Buprenorphine injections from accused Sristi Kurre, leading to registration of FIR No. 1004/2024 under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in connection with FIR No. 1004/2024, the petitioner was formally arrested on 07.12.2024. It is contended that both FIRs are based upon the same set of evidence, namely memorandum statements of co-accused persons and the same bank statement of co-accused Godavari Kurre. It is argued that registration of two separate FIRs at the same police station on the basis of identical evidence amounts to double jeopardy and abuse of the process of law. It is also contended that no contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the entire prosecution case rests upon weak and inadmissible evidence. It is further argued that mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 4 105 and 185 of the BNSS were not followed during search and seizure proceedings, thereby vitiating the investigation. On these grounds, quashing of proceedings in FIR No. 1004/2024 has been sought. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation has revealed the existence of an organised network engaged in illegal trafficking of narcotic and psychotropic substances. It is submitted that the petitioner’s involvement has surfaced through memorandum statements, financial transaction records, digital communication data and interlinked activities amongst the accused persons. The State contends that the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes participation of the petitioner in the illegal drug trade and the case involves serious offences having adverse societal impact. It is therefore submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the FIR, charge-sheet, case diary and other material available on record. 7. The scope of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is limited. It is well settled that such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly malicious or amount to abuse of the process of law. At this stage, the Court is not required to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of evidence 5 nor conduct a mini trial. The settled legal position mandates that if the allegations disclose prima facie commission of an offence, the prosecution must be permitted to proceed in accordance with law. 8. Upon careful examination of the material available on record, it is evident that FIR No. 1004/2024 arose out of a separate and distinct incident wherein contraband Buprenorphine injections were allegedly recovered from accused Sristi Kurre. The investigation conducted thereafter allegedly revealed a chain of procurement, distribution and financial transactions connecting several accused persons. The involvement of the petitioner is alleged to have surfaced through financial transaction trails, communication links and disclosures made during investigation suggesting participation in the larger conspiracy relating to illegal narcotic drug trade. At this stage, the material placed by the prosecution cannot be said to be inherently improbable or incapable of constituting the alleged offences. 9. The contention of the petitioner regarding double jeopardy is premature and legally untenable. The principle of double jeopardy becomes applicable only when a person is prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence. In the present case, the two FIRs relate to different recoveries and separate transactions, though the investigation may have revealed interlinked activities amongst accused persons. Registration of separate FIRs in relation to distinct recoveries forming part of a larger conspiracy does not, by itself, attract the bar of double jeopardy. The determination whether both cases ultimately relate to the 6 same transaction is a matter which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial. 10. The submission that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner also does not entitle him to seek quashing of proceedings at this stage. Under the NDPS Act, criminal liability may arise not only from physical possession but also from participation in conspiracy, financing, facilitation and abetment of illegal drug trafficking. The material collected during investigation, including financial transaction records and alleged communication links, prima facie indicates involvement of the petitioner in the alleged organised activity. The evidentiary value of such material is required to be examined during trial and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings seeking quashing of criminal prosecution. 11. The contention regarding alleged non-compliance of procedural safeguards under the BNSS raises disputed questions of fact. Whether the search and seizure proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law and whether any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cross- examination of witnesses. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction unless the illegality is apparent on the face of record, which is not the case here. 12. The offences alleged in the present case relate to trafficking of narcotic and psychotropic substances, which are grave in nature and have serious societal repercussions. The material collected during investigation discloses prima facie involvement of multiple accused 7 persons in an organised illegal activity. Interference at this stage would amount to prematurely terminating prosecution and would be contrary to settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR and material collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of offences under the NDPS Act. The contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon full-fledged trial. 14. Consequently, no ground is made out for exercising jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 1004/2024. 15. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan