10-REVN-100-2026 (CR).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 100 OF 2026 Siraj Mohammed Fakir Mohammed Qureshi Alias Sidha ...Applicant/s Versus Anti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar Unit ...Respondent/s With INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 409 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2026 Siraj Mohd Fakir Mohd Qureshi Alias Siddha ...Applicant/s Versus Anti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar Unit ...Respondent/s ________________________________________________________________ Ms. Puja Yadav i/by Shreerat Kamath, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The challenge in this application is to the framing of charge against the Applicant vide Exhibit 11 and 13 dated 16/10/2025 passed by the Learned Special NDPS Court, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 1078 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22 (c) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Page 1 of 3 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.09.07 10:50:28 +0530 10-REVN-100-2026 (CR).doc Tikam 3. It is prosecution's case that on 31/12/2023, the police apprehended the co-accused and found 65 grams of Mephedrone (M.D.) in his conscious possession. It is alleged that Applicant supplied the said contraband to the co-accused. 4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant has been charged with the present crime merely on the basis of statement of the co-accused. No documents or evidence is produced on record to show that the applicant was in contact with the co-accused. But this fact is not considered by the Learned Special Judge and charge has been framed against the Applicant, which is erroneous and requested to allow the Application. 5. It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant has antecedents of similar nature. Applicant was in contact with the co- accused. Adequate material is produced on record to show the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. There is prima facie case against the Applicant. The Learned Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. 6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused documents produced on record. The Applicant has been charged on the basis of statement of co-accused. Nothing is produced on record to show that the Applicant was in contact with the co-accused. When prosecution alleges 10-REVN-100-2026 (CR).doc Tikam that the applicant was involved in conspiracy with the co-accused, some documents or evidence needs to be produced along with the charge-sheet to show the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. But no evidence is produced to show the involvement of the applicant on record. It shows no case is made out against the Applicant. Continuing trial against the Applicant would amount to an abuse of process of law and I pass following order: ORDER (i) Application is allowed. (ii) Charges framed against the Applicant vide Exhibit-11 and 13 dated 16/10/2025 passed by the Learned Special NDPS Judge, Greater Bombay in Spl. Case No. 1078 of 2024 are set aside. Applicant is hereby discharged from the charges leveled against him. (iii) Criminal Revision Application along with pending Interim Application are disposed of accordingly. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)