Allowed

Avishek Pandey @ Chintu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jun 2025CRLP/7267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition by accused No.9 in an NDPS Sessions Case concerning LSD blots. Except his own statement during interrogation, no material or medical test implicated him. Relying on Tofan Singh on inadmissibility of Section 67 statements, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed proceedings against him.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner/accused No.9 in SC NDPS No.307 of 2024 quashed; miscellaneous applications closed.

Avishek Pandey @ Chintu Vs State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7267 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Avishek Pandey @ Chintu, S/o. Akhilesh Pandey, Age 32 years, Occ- Pvt Employee, R/o H.No.4-2-5211149-5011, Saraswati Nivas, Surabhi Enclave, Kowkoor, Medchal Malkajgiri District Telangana State

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.9

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, rep. by P.P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

. . . RespondenUState

¶13

Sri M.Veeraswamy, Sub-lnspector of police, Bollarum Police Station Secunderabad.

¶14

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings to the extent of petitioner herein/Accused No. 9 in SC NDPS No.307 ol 2024 in Crime No 28 of 2024 of Bollarum Police Station, Secunderabad, on the file of ll Additional Sessions Judge, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of B.N S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings to the extent of petitioner herein/Accused No.9 in SC NDPS No.307 of 2024 in Crime No. 28 of 2024 ol Bollarum Police Station, Secunderabad, on the file of ll Additional Sessions Judge, at Nampally, Hyderabad, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.Santosh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the F espondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7267 OF 2025

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in SC NDPS No.307 o'f 2024 on the file of the learned ll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, at Nampally

¶25

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.9 in the Sessions Case registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 22(c),27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').

¶26

Heard Mr. G.Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

¶27

The prosecution case in brief is that on 01 .03.2024 on credible information, the complainant along with Staff surprised premises at Ammuguda Chowrasta, Bollaram, Secunderabad, and found accused Nos.'l and 5 trying to sell LSD blots to accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 On seeing the Police, when perturbed, accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended and on search, found that accused No.1 is in^possession

\ \

I I

I II I I

NlR,/ Cr/.P.Nt. 7267 ol202 5

¶33

of^'l 1 LSD blots and on enquiry, revealed their identit es and they have informed that accused No.1 purchases contraband frcm accused No.S and used to sell to accused Nos.2 to 4, 6 to g at hi,lher prices. Upon recording of the statement of admission in seizr rre panchanama, complaint was lodged. Whereupon, Crime No.l,g ol 2024 was registered alleging that the accused No.1 to g conmitted offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c),21 and 29 of the NDrS Act, and after investigation, charge-sheet was laid including the rrame of accused No,9 alleging offence under Section 27 of NDpS Act ;rnd consequenfly, the Sessions Case was numbered vrde SC NDpS N:.307 of 2024 on the file of the tearned ll ll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, at Nampally.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would c ontend that the petitioner was farsery impricated in the offence e nd even in the investigation, except for the self-statement of petitione r that he used to purchase LSD brots from accused No.S for serf const mption, no other material or documents either evidencing purchase o consumption of the contraband is available. Even accused No.5 or )ther accused in their confession statements did not refer the name r,f accused No.9 Further, the lnvestigation officer has not collected the rlood samples of the petitioner/accused No.9 to detect the trace bf drrrg, if any. Thus,

¶35

.^{there is absolutelyno evidenceto implicatethe pet tioner,} as such, --*.L _

¶36

N7R,/ Cr/.P.No. /267 of 2025

¶37

¶38

continuance of proceedings against him would be unjust. Hence, prayed for quashment of proceedings.

¶39

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that except the self statement of the petitioner/accused No.9, no other material has been collected during investigation to prima facie show that the petitioner/accused No.9 is one among the other customers of accused No.S. That apart, no medical test conducted upon the petitioner/accused No.9 to make out petitioner consuming the contraband.

¶40

7. I have perused the materials on record

¶41

lt is clear by the record that except the self-statement of petitioner/accused No.9 during interrogation, there is no other material against him. Further, no medical test conducted upon the petitioner/accused No.9. However, this fact has not been reflected in the charge-sheet. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. fhe Stafe of Tamilnadu' had held that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDpS Act, is inadmissible in evidence. That being the position, in the absence of any material evidence, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be _sdqstified^{and abuseof processof Law.}

¶42

ts..-. I zozt 1a; scc r

¶43

N rRJ

¶44

¶45

C,/.P.Na.2267 ol ?025

¶46

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petitiorr is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in SC NDPS

¶47

No.307 of 2024 on the file of the learned lt Additional Sessions Judge,

¶48

Hyderabad, at Narnpally, are hereby quashed

¶49

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶50

Sd/- T. JAYASREE I)EPUTY REGISTRAR

¶51

To,

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

I I \ SECTION OFFICER

¶54

1 The XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ser;underabad.

¶55

2 The ll Additional Sessions Judge, at Nampally. J The S-tation House Officer, Bollaram Police Station, Hyderabad. 4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OU-l-]

¶56