1 2026:CGHC:22723-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1361 of 2026 Mahendra Verma S/o Rajkumar Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Uparpara, Abhanpur, Police Station- Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Dubey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.05.2026 1. Heard Mr.Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.05.14 18:58:48 +0530 2 kindly be pleased to quash the charges dated 16.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act framed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 36/2026, cognizance taken dated 28.02.2026; and further be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Charge Sheet No. 24/2026 dated 26.02.2026 filed for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act and Crime No. 12/2026 dated 14.01.2026 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, insofar as it relates to the present applicant; in the interest of justice.” 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.01.2026, information was received from an informant that certain persons were illegally transporting a large quantity of ganja (cannabis) in a white Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-DM-5000, which was coming from Mahasamund towards Rajim via Fingeshwar Main Road. After informing the Station House Officer about the said information, the same was duly recorded in the daily diary, and a vehicle checking operation was conducted on the Rajim– Mahasamund road in front of the main gate of Police Station Fingeshwar. During the course of checking, the aforesaid white Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-DM-5000, as described by the informant, was seen approaching at high speed from Fingeshwar towards Rajim and was intercepted by the police 3 party. Upon inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Ajay Sahu, while the other occupants identified themselves as Angad Ram Gaikwad, juvenile Gulshan Nishad, and Hemant Sahu. During the search of the Tata Safari vehicle in possession of the accused persons, two separate plastic sacks kept in the rear luggage compartment were recovered. Upon examination, both sacks were found to contain a substance emitting the smell of ganja. On being questioned, the accused persons admitted that the substance was ganja. From one black-blue plastic sack, 14.093 kilograms of ganja was recovered, and from the other white plastic sack, 5.360 kilograms of ganja was recovered, making the total quantity 19.423 kilograms, valued at approximately Rs. 9,70,000/-. 4. In addition to the aforesaid contraband, one white Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-DM-5000, valued at Rs. 3,00,000/-, and three touchscreen mobile phones valued at Rs. 30,000/- were also seized. Thus, articles worth approximately Rs. 13,00,000/- in total were seized from the possession of the accused persons. The seized ganja was duly sealed on the spot, and the police took custody of all seized articles in accordance with law. During interrogation, accused Ajay Sahu and Angad Ram Gaikwad disclosed that the ganja had been ordered by Mahendra Verma, resident of Abhanpur, mobile number 9131661503, and had been procured from Prafulla Sahu, resident of Balangir, Odisha, mobile number 8917459640. They further disclosed that Ajay Sahu, along with Rahul Gaikwad, son of Angad Ram 4 Gaikwad, was involved in the purchase and sale of ganja. Since the acts of the accused persons constituted offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a preliminary offence report was prepared on the spot, and accused Ajay Sahu and Angad Ram Gaikwad were arrested on 14.01.2026. Thereafter, upon returning to the police station, ASI Neeluram Diwan registered formal Crime No. 14/2026 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and commenced the investigation. 5. During the course of investigation, social background forms of the juveniles were prepared on 14.01.2026, their guardians were informed, and the juveniles were sent for judicial remand. Subsequently, they were released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. That, during further interrogation, accused Ajay Sahu and Angad Ram Gaikwad reiterated that the ganja had been procured from Prafulla Sahu of Balangir, Odisha, on the instructions of Mahendra Verma, and that Rahul Gaikwad was also involved in the purchase and sale of ganja. Accordingly, Mahendra Verma, Prafulla Sahu, and Rahul Gaikwad were summoned to the police station and interrogated. Their memorandum statements were recorded, and upon admitting their involvement, Mahendra Verma was arrested on 14.01.2026, while Prafulla Kumar Sahu and Rahul Gaikwad were arrested on 15.01.2026. Verification of mobile number 8917459640 confirmed that it belonged to accused Prafulla Kumar Sahu. Scrutiny of the Call Detail Records (CDR) 5 revealed that on 13.01.2026, accused Ajay Kumar Sahu had several telephonic conversations with Prafulla Kumar Sahu. Similarly, Prafulla Sahu was found to have communicated with accused Angad through mobile number 8817504588. During the relevant period, the location of Prafulla Kumar Sahu was traced to Dapla Malmunda, Odisha. Thus, it was found that accused Prafulla Kumar Sahu of Odisha and accused Ajay Kumar Sahu and Angad Gaikwad were in constant communication prior to the registration of the FIR and their arrest, thereby indicating their involvement in the commission of the offence. During further investigation, it was also found that Rahul Gaikwad had transferred an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the bank account of Prafulla Sahu. On the basis of the entire investigation, evidence collected, and material available on record, it was found that the accused persons and the juveniles had committed offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 6. On 28.02.2026, the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and registered Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 36/2026 against the present applicant and other co-accused persons and on 16.03.2026, charges were framed against the present applicant and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the 6 learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur. Hence, the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no contraband has been recovered from his conscious possession. It is contended that the petitioner was neither present at the spot from where the alleged seizure was made nor was any incriminating article recovered from him. Learned counsel further submits that the entire case of the prosecution against the present petitioner is based solely upon the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. It is argued that such memorandum statements are inadmissible in evidence except to the extent that they lead to discovery of a fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, no recovery or discovery has been made pursuant to the alleged memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon against the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that there is no independent evidence available on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. No contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, nor has any seizure been effected from him. Apart from the statements of co-accused persons, there is no independent witness or material linking the petitioner with the alleged transportation or trafficking of ganja. Learned counsel 7 submits that the prosecution has relied upon Call Detail Records (CDR) to implicate the petitioner. However, mere telephonic conversation between the petitioner and co-accused persons cannot by itself establish involvement in illegal trafficking of contraband. It is argued that communication between individuals, without any substantive corroborative evidence, is insufficient to constitute an offence under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that the alleged transfer of Rs. 45,000/- to the bank account of co- accused Prafulla Sahu is not sufficient to establish conspiracy or abetment under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the said monetary transaction and the alleged contraband seized in the present case. 9. Learned counsel further contends that the essential ingredients of “conscious possession” are completely absent in the present case. The petitioner was not found in possession of any narcotic substance, and there is no material to show that he had knowledge of or control over the alleged contraband. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that, even at the stage of framing of charge, the prosecution is required to establish a prima facie case against the accused. In the present matter, no such prima facie material exists against the petitioner, yet charges have been framed mechanically without proper appreciation of the material available on record. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order framing charges is mechanical, non-speaking, and 8 has been passed without due judicial application of mind. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the absence of legally admissible evidence against the petitioner before framing charges under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. It is argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of any cogent material, would amount to abuse of the process of law and would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion, which cannot take the place of legal proof. Since the provisions of the NDPS Act are stringent in nature and carry severe penal consequences, strict compliance with the statutory safeguards and procedural requirements is mandatory. In the present case, such compliance is absent, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is legal, proper, and in accordance with law, and does not call for any interference by this Court. It is submitted that during investigation, sufficient material has been collected against the present petitioner showing his involvement in the offence punishable under the NDPS Act. The memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, coupled with the Call Detail Records (CDR), bank transaction details, and other surrounding circumstances, clearly establish a prima facie case against the 9 petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation revealed continuous telephonic communication between the petitioner and the co-accused persons prior to the seizure of contraband, and the petitioner was actively involved in the procurement and sale of ganja. The transfer of Rs. 45,000/- to the account of co-accused Prafulla Sahu further corroborates the prosecution case regarding criminal conspiracy and illegal trafficking. 11. It is also submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists against the accused and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. The material available on record is sufficient to raise grave suspicion regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the State contends that the offences under the NDPS Act are serious in nature and have a grave impact on society. Therefore, considering the material collected during investigation, the learned Trial Court has rightly framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 20(b) (ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. On these grounds, learned counsel for the State prays for dismissal of the present petition. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary material as well as the impugned order, this Court is 10 of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out in the present petition. 14. From the material collected during investigation, it appears that commercial quantity of ganja was seized from the co-accused persons travelling in the vehicle in question. During investigation, the co-accused persons specifically disclosed the involvement of the present petitioner in the procurement and sale of the contraband. Apart from the memorandum statements, the prosecution has also collected Call Detail Records (CDR), location details, and bank transaction records indicating continuous communication and financial transactions between the petitioner and the co-accused persons prior to the seizure. Prima facie, the material available on record discloses sufficient nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence. 15. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The settled principle of law is that if the material available on record gives rise to grave suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused, charges can validly be framed. In the present case, the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be wholly insufficient for proceeding against the petitioner under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 16. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the 11 Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding inadmissibility of memorandum statements and absence of conscious possession are matters relating to appreciation of evidence, which can appropriately be examined during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists, and not whether the prosecution is likely to secure conviction. 18. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or non-application of mind in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act). The learned Trial Court has rightly framed charges on the basis of the material available on record. 19. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. d/-Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu