The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings under the NDPS Act cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage merely on the ground that evidence against an accused is circumstantial or based on co-accused confessions, provided the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclose an offence. This ruling reinforces the threshold for quashing under Bhajan Lal and clarifies the evidentiary weight of confessional statements in conspiracy cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kishore Sahu, a constable posted in the Treasury Department, was named as an accused in FIR No. 381/2024 dated 28.08.2024, registered at Police Station Jutemill, District Raigarh, under Sections 20(B)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The case arose from a covert operation targeting the sale of 175 kg of ganja at Kodatarai Hawai Patti. Five individuals - Santram Khute, Shumitra Khute, Rajaram, Ankit Singh, and Mahendra Tandan - were initially apprehended. Subsequent investigation, based on the confessional statement of co-accused Santram Khute, led to the arrest of five additional persons, including the petitioner, between 9:05 pm and 10:00 pm on 30.08.2024.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2024 at 10:00 pm
- The chargesheet (No. 361/2024) was filed on 18.10.2024 against nine accused persons
- The petitioner was not present at the scene of the seizure
- He was employed in the Treasury Department, with no known role in law enforcement or narcotics operations
- No independent witness has testified against the petitioner
- The prosecution relies on confessional statements of co-accused Bhagwat Sahu, Deepak @ Nanu Bhardwaj, Vyomkesh @ Vyoma, and Santram Khute
- The petitioner’s first bail application was dismissed on 20.12.2024; second on 20.03.2025
- He was granted regular bail on 03.12.2025
- The trial court framed charges on 10.12.2024
- As of the judgment date, 12 out of 20 witnesses had been examined
Procedural History
- 28.08.2024: FIR No. 381/2024 registered at PS Jutemill
- 30.08.2024: Petitioner arrested at 10:00 pm
- 18.10.2024: Chargesheet filed under Sections 20(B)/29 NDPS Act
- 20.12.2024: First bail application dismissed by High Court
- 20.03.2025: Second bail application dismissed by High Court
- 10.12.2024: Charges framed by Special Judge (NDPS), Raigarh
- 03.12.2025: Petitioner granted regular bail
- 16.04.2026: Present petition under Section 528 CrPC (as substituted by Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) filed before Chhattisgarh High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Claim: The FIR and chargesheet lack specific allegations against him. His employment in the Treasury Department renders his involvement implausible. No direct evidence links him to the conspiracy. The confessional statements are vague, uncorroborated, and inadmissible as sole evidence. The charge framing order is mechanical and lacks reasoning. Proceedings are malicious and violate natural justice, evidenced by his unlawful suspension.
State’s Response: The confessional statements of co-accused, combined with the timing of arrests and the nature of the conspiracy, establish a prima facie case. The petitioner’s official posting does not preclude involvement in a broader criminal network. The trial is ongoing with substantial evidence recorded. Quashing at this stage is premature and contrary to settled law.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of:
- FIR No. 381/2024
- Chargesheet No. 361/2024
- Cognizance taken by the trial court
- Charge framing order dated 10.12.2024
- All ongoing criminal proceedings against him
The Legal Issue
Can criminal proceedings under the NDPS Act be quashed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita when the allegations against the accused are based primarily on confessional statements of co-accused, and no direct evidence links the accused to the offence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) and Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, arguing that an FIR may be quashed if the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not prima facie constitute an offence. He contended that the confessional statements of co-accused were vague, uncorroborated, and lacked specific details implicating the petitioner. He emphasized that the petitioner’s role in the Treasury Department made his involvement in a narcotics conspiracy inherently improbable. He further cited State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta (2022) to argue that mere association or proximity cannot substitute for concrete evidence. The charge framing order was described as a mechanical formality, devoid of judicial reasoning.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the confessional statements, though not conclusive, formed part of a cumulative evidentiary chain that included arrests, recovery, and the petitioner’s connection to other accused. It argued that Toofan Singh permits reliance on co-accused confessions in conspiracy cases, and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2010) 9 SCC 466 holds that absence of direct testimony does not invalidate a prima facie case. The State maintained that the trial court had properly applied Section 228 CrPC in framing charges, and that the petitioner’s suspension from service was a separate administrative matter irrelevant to the criminal proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured review of the legal principles governing quashing of FIRs under Bhajan Lal. It held that the threshold for quashing is high: the allegations must be so absurd or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could conclude an offence has been made out. The Court observed that the FIR disclosed a clear conspiracy to traffic ganja, with the petitioner’s arrest following the confessional statements of co-accused who were present at the scene. The Court noted that while confessions of co-accused are not conclusive, they are admissible as corroborative evidence under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and are recognized as part of the evidentiary matrix in conspiracy cases under Toofan Singh.
"The confessions of co-accused, though not the sole evidence, support the investigation's trajectory and form part of the cumulative material upon which the charge sheet is based."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that his employment in the Treasury Department negated involvement, stating that the nature of a conspiracy may involve individuals with no direct role in logistics but who provide logistical or intelligence support. It further held that the absence of direct eyewitnesses does not invalidate a prima facie case, particularly in narcotics cases where conspirators operate covertly, as affirmed in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh. The Court found no merit in the claim that the charge framing order was mechanical, noting that the trial court had considered the material on record and followed statutory procedure. The dismissal of the petitioner’s earlier bail applications further indicated the seriousness of the allegations. The Court concluded that the case did not fall within the narrow exception for quashing under Bhajan Lal.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the FIR, chargesheet, and charge framing order are legally valid and cannot be quashed at this stage. The criminal proceedings shall continue before the trial court. The petitioner’s bail status remains unaffected. No monetary relief or direction was issued, as the relief sought was quashing, which was denied.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confessional Statements Can Sustain a Prima Facie Case
- Practitioners must now argue that co-accused confessions, even if uncorroborated by direct evidence, can form the basis of a prima facie case under the NDPS Act
- Quashing petitions under Section 528 must overcome the presumption that conspiracy cases rely on circumstantial and confessional evidence
- The burden shifts to the petitioner to show that the confession is inherently unreliable or fabricated, not merely that it is unsupported
Employment Status Does Not Preclude Criminal Liability
- A person’s legitimate employment cannot be invoked as a shield against criminal allegations without concrete proof of impossibility of involvement
- Courts will assess involvement based on conduct and association, not occupation alone
- Lawyers must avoid relying solely on professional status to argue improbability of involvement
Pre-Trial Quashing Is Not a Substitute for Trial
- The High Court reaffirmed that evidentiary evaluation belongs to the trial court, not appellate forums
- Petitioners cannot use quashing petitions to challenge the sufficiency of evidence before trial concludes
- The fact that 12 witnesses have been examined underscores that the matter is beyond the stage of preliminary scrutiny
