1 CGHC010246332026 2026:CGHC:35216-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 352 of 2026 Prashant Tiwari S/o Narayan Tiwari, aged about 31 years Occupation - Business, R/o Village Kathakoni, Post Kathakoni, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “(i) Call for the entire record relating to FIR No.257/2026 dated 15.03.2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the consequential investigation proceedings against the petitioner arising out of FIR No.257/2026. (iii) [wrongly typed as (ii)] In the alternative, direct the respondent authorities to conduct a fair, impartial and independent investigation uninfluenced by any preconceived opinion regarding the petitioner's involvement. (iv) [wrongly typed as (vi)] Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition raising an issue with regard to the legality, fairness and propriety of the investigation being conducted by the respondent–police authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that, although he is neither named in the First Information Report nor has any contraband been recovered from his possession, the investigating agency is seeking to implicate him in the alleged offence under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, solely on the basis of assumptions and conjectures arising during the course of investigation. It is further the case of the petitioner that, the vehicle in question was an abandoned vehicle from which 40 kg of ganja was recovered and that no material exists connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is also the case of the 3 petitioner that despite there being no direct or cogent material connecting him with the alleged offence, the respondent authorities have circulated his photograph and personal particulars through police channels and have announced a reward of Rs. 5,000/- for information leading to his apprehension. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid actions of the respondent authorities are arbitrary, illegal, and reflective of a biased and unfair investigation. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 01.07.2026 had directed respondent No.2 /Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit disclosing the material/evidence available against the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed on 07.07.2026. 5. On 07.07.2026, this Court has passed the following orders : “Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State. Learned State counsel submits that an affidavit has been filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur in compliance to the Court’s order dated 01.07.2026, which reveals that the prosecution case is founded on the allegation that on 15.03.2026, acting on secret information, the police recovered 40 kilograms of alleged contraband cannabis from an abandoned Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No. CG-29-A-3487 and initially registered the offence against unknown persons. 4 During the course of investigation, the petitioner came to be implicated on the basis that he had allegedly purchased the said vehicle on 09.01.2026. The respondents have further asserted that the petitioner could not be apprehended despite raids conducted at his known addresses, whereafter abscondence proceedings were initiated and a reward was declared for information regarding his whereabouts. It has also been stated that one criminal case under the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prevention Act, 2022 is registered against the petitioner and that his custodial interrogation is necessary for carrying the investigation to its logical conclusion. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejoinder filed in response to the personal affidavit demonstrates that the respondents have failed to place on record any legally admissible material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is contended that the prosecution case rests solely on the alleged ownership of the seized vehicle, whereas the respondents’ own documents are mutually contradictory regarding the ownership, auction, transfer and custody of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the official transport records generated on the date of seizure continue to show one Rajaram as the registered owner and no document evidencing transfer of ownership in favour of the petitioner has been produced. The petitioner has specifically denied the execution and genuineness of the alleged sale agreement dated 09.01.2026, disputed the signatures appearing thereon, and expressed willingness to subject the disputed signatures to forensic examination. It is further argued that the chronology reflected in the auction documents is inherently 5 inconsistent and renders the respondents’ version unreliable. The petitioner also contends that no recovery has been made from the petitioner, no witness or electronic or forensic evidence connects him with the seized contraband, and there is no material to establish conscious possession, which is an essential ingredient of the alleged offence under the NDPS Act. Accordingly, it is urged that the respondents’ affidavit does not satisfy the direction issued by this Court and fails to disclose any credible material warranting the petitioner’s implication. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, particularly the specific denial of the execution of the alleged Sale Agreement dated 09.01.2026 and the dispute raised with regard to the signatures appearing thereon, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the disputed signatures be subjected to scientific examination. Accordingly, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur shall ensure that the admitted/specimen signatures of the petitioner are obtained after due notice to him and forwarded, along with the disputed document, to the Government Handwriting Expert/Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and examination. The Senior Superintendent of Police shall communicate to the petitioner the date, time and place for furnishing his specimen signatures, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the said exercise. The report of the Government Handwriting Expert, along with the relevant record, shall be placed before this Court on 29.07.2026. Till the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the crime in question, 6 subject to his cooperation with the investigation and compliance with the aforesaid directions. Learned State counsel shall forthwith communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police Bilaspur for its immediate compliance.” 6. On 29.07.2026, this Court has passed the following orders : “Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Baghel, GA for the State. The State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) is directed to get the verification of the hand writing expert done with respect to the disputed signatures of the petitioner and make available the same to this Court within a week. List the matter on 11.08.2026. Copy of this order be sent by the State counsel to the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.). Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.” 7. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned State counsel submits that in compliance of the Court’s order, the documents pertaining to disputed signatures of the petitioner were sent for verification to the State Examiner of Questioned Document, wherein it has been opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked S-1 to S-6 and N-2 did not writ the red enclosed questioned signature similarly 7 stamped and marked Q-1. Copies of the letter dated 10.08.2026 of the Incharge, Police Station Sakri, District – Bilaspur along with opinion of the State Examiner of Questioned Document are filed and marked as Annexure D-1 along with application for taking document on record. 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the report of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, placed on record pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, it is evident that the questioned signature marked as Q-1 on the disputed document does not correspond with the admitted/specimen signatures of the petitioner marked as S-1 to S-6 and N-2. In view of the aforesaid scientific examination, the investigating agency is required to consider the said material while assessing the involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question and to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the ultimate involvement of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to duly consider the aforesaid opinion of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, along with the other material available on record, and thereafter take an appropriate decision regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question. The Investigating Officer shall submit the police report, insofar as it 8 relates to the petitioner, before the competent Court within a period of two weeks from today. 10. Till submission of the aforesaid police report, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by this Court shall continue, subject to his continued cooperation with the investigation and compliance with all lawful directions issued by the Investigating Officer. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the ultimate culpability of the petitioner, and the Investigating Officer shall undertake the exercise independently and strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra