Allowed¶24

Sandip Ajitkumar Shukla v. The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecturo High Court Appellate Side Mumbai

Bombay HC3 Feb 2026REVN/25/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sandip Ajitkumar Shukla v. State of Maharashtra; Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Shivkumar Dige, J.; 06-05-2026; NDPS discharge application rejected below Exhibit-40 by Special NDPS Court 42nd; discharge granted on revision; co-accused disclosure naming 'Sunny'; arrest panchanama 'Sandip Shukla @ Sunny'; arrest three years after co-accused; no documentary evidence of involvement; trial continuation abuse of process; N.D.P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019; Special Judge NDPS Mumbai; 40 gm Mephedrone seized 14.04.2015.

What did the court decide?

Applicant discharged from N.D.P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019 pending before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Mumbai; Revision Application subsequently disposed of. ¶24

Sandip Ajitkumar Shukla vs The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecturo High Court Appellate Side Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

16-REVN-25-2026 (CR).doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2026

¶6

Sandip Ajitkumar Shukla … Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶9

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISHKILAJE Date:2026.05.1114:59:12+0700

¶10

Mr. Sahil Morey a/w. Mr. Sunil Totawad, Advocate for Applicant. Smt. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for the Respondent-State. PSI – Mr. Paresh Gargade, Versova Police Station, Mumbai, present.

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 6^th MAY, 2026.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The challenge in this application is order passed by Special N.D.P.S. Court, 42^nd below Exhibit-40 whereby discharge application of the applicant is rejected.

¶14

It is prosecution’s case that on 14.04.2015, police apprehended co-accused and in their possession found 40 gm Mephedrone. It is alleged that the said Mephedrone was provided to the co-accused by the applicant.

¶15

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is arrested in the year 2018, after three years of the arrest of the co-accused. In the disclosure statement, the co-accused had stated that

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

16-REVN-25-2026 (CR).doc

¶18

S.S.Kilaje

¶19

one person named Sunny had provided Mephedrone to them. No full name of the applicant was given. Only on the statement of co-accused, applicant has been arrested. No document is produced on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the crime. But this fact is not considered by the learned Special Judge and requested to allow the application.

¶20

It is contention of learned APP that in the arrest panchanama, name of the applicant is mentioned as Sandip Shukla @ Sunny. It shows applicant is the same person whose name was disclosed by the co-accused, evidence is required to show the innocence of the applicant and requested to reject the application.

¶21

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. The co-accused disclosed the name ‘Sunny’ as the person who provided Mephedrone to them. The applicant was arrested after three years of arrest of the co-accused. No document is produced on record to show that the applicant is the same person who was referred as Sunny. Continuing the trial against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of law and I pass following order :

¶22