[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kishore Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17335-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1066 of 2026
Kishore Sahu S/o Ishwari Sahu, aged about 34 years Occupation
Constable R/o Sakarra P.S. and Tahsil Malkharouda, Dist. Sakti,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station S.H.O. Jutemill, Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Shyam Manohar, Advocate through VC
and Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Shyam Manohar (through video conferencing) and
Mr.Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
the State/ respondent.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita with the
following prayers :-
"A. Quash the FIR No. 381/ 2024, dated 28.08.2024
P.S. Jutmil qua the present petitioner (Annexure P/1),
B. Quash the Chargesheet bearing No.361/2024 dated
18.10.2024 qua the present petitioner (Annexure P/2),
C. Quash the cognizance taken by the Ld. trial court
qua the present petitioner.
D. Quash the charge framing order dated 10.12.2024
of the Ld. Trial Court qua the present petitioner
(Annexure P/6),
E. Quash the ongoing criminal proceeding qua the
present petitioner in the above-mentioned FIR.; and
grant any other relief to the petitioner as may be
deemed fit and proper in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.08.2024, secret information
was received that a white Alto car and a Tata S Gold van were
waiting at Kodatarai Hawai Patti to sell narcotic substance (ganja).
Inspector Mohan Lal Bhardwaj led a police team to the spot, and
five persons--Santram Khute, Shumitra Khute, Rajaram, Ankit
Singh, and Mahendra Tandan--were initially reported for
possessing 175 kgs of ganja. A copy of the FIR is annexed as
Annexure P/1. Based on the confessional statement of co-
accused Santram Khute, additional accused Bhagwat Sahu,
Deepak @ Nanu Bhardwaj, Vyomkesh @ Vyoma, and Kishor
Sahu (petitioner herein) were arrested between 09:05 pm and 10
pm on 30.08.2024. The petitioner was arrested at 10 pm. A
chargesheet was filed on 18.10.2024 under Sections 20(B)/29 of
the NDPS Act against nine accused persons. Copy of the final
report is annexed as Annexure P/2. The petitioner's first and
second bail applications were dismissed by the this Court on
20.12.2024 and 20.03.2025, respectively. Copies of the orders are
annexed as Annexures P/3 and P/4. The petitioner was granted
regular bail on 03.12.2025 by the this Court. Copy of the bail order
is annexed as Annexure P/5.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before
the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act), District - Raigarh (C.G.),
wherein cognizance was taken, and charges were framed on
10.12.2024. The case is currently at the evidence stage, with 12
out of 20 witnesses examined. Copy of the charge framing order
is annexed as Annexure P/6.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR does not
disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner, which is a
prerequisite for initiating and continuing criminal proceedings. The
entire case is based on a vague, uncorroborated confessional
statement by co-accused Bhagwat Sahu, which lacks specific
details regarding the alleged offence. He further submitted that
the petitioner, being posted in the Treasury Department, had no
access to information regarding police movements, and the
prosecution has failed to produce any material or evidence to
substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the charge framing order by
the Learned Trial Court is cryptic and mechanically passed
without considering the lack of substantive evidence, particularly
as no witness has testified against the petitioner. Therefore, the
proceedings are an abuse of the process of law, and the case falls
squarely under the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and
Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. It is
further submitted that the criminal proceedings are maliciously
instituted with ulterior motives, as evidenced by the petitioner's
unlawful suspension from service, which violated the principles of
natural justice and government service rules. The FIR and charge
sheet do not constitute a cognizable offence, and the allegations
made against the petitioner are absurd and inherently improbable.
The petitioner has been implicated without any credible evidence,
and allowing the proceedings to continue would lead to a
miscarriage of justice and undue harassment. In support of his
argument, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the judgment dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex
Court in the matter of State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid
Ahmad Arimutta & Another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.
242 of 2022 arising out of 22702 of 2020) .
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid
submission and submitted that the FIR clearly discloses a
cognizable offence against the petitioner, supported by credible
evidence and confessional statements from co-accused persons,
including Bhagwat Sahu. The petitioner's claim that the case is
based solely on a vague statement is without merit, as the
confessions and subsequent arrests provide sufficient grounds for
the charges. The petitioner's argument that he had no access to
police movement information due to his posting in the Treasury
Department does not negate his involvement in the larger criminal
conspiracy. Furthermore, the charge framing order by the
Learned Trial Court is valid, having been passed in accordance
with legal requirements. The trial is ongoing, with several
witnesses examined, and it is premature for the petitioner to claim
that no evidence exists against him. The petitioner's assertion that
the proceedings are malicious or initiated with ulterior motives is
unsupported by facts. The prior dismissal of the petitioner's bail
applications further reflects the seriousness of the case.
7. After considering the submissions of both the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned State counsel, this Court finds that
the FIR in the present case clearly discloses a cognizable offence
against the petitioner, and the materials on record, including the
confessional statements of co-accused persons, provide a
sufficient basis for proceeding with the case. The petitioner's
contention that the charges are vague and uncorroborated is
unfounded, as the confessions of the co-accused, though not the
sole evidence, support the investigation's trajectory. The Court
takes note of the judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an FIR can be
quashed only when the allegations, even if taken at face value, do
not prima facie constitute any offence. In the present case, the
allegations, when taken at face value, do indeed make out a case
under the NDPS Act against the petitioner.
8. The petitioner also argues that the charge framing order is cryptic
and mechanically passed, but this Court finds that the Learned
Trial Court has followed due process in framing charges,
considering the material evidence. As per the Toofan Singh
(supra) judgment, confessional statements made by co-accused,
while not entirely determinative, can form part of the evidence in
cases involving a conspiracy, and the Trial Court is within its
discretion to proceed with the case based on such evidence.
Further, as laid down by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra
v. Suresh (2010) 9 SCC 466, the mere fact that no direct witness
has testified against the petitioner does not negate the possibility
of a prima facie case being made out, especially in a conspiracy
case.
9. Regarding the petitioner's argument that he had no access to
police movement information due to his posting in the Treasury
Department, this Court finds that the petitioner's involvement is
not purely reliant on such information. As per Pallulabid Ahmad
Arimutta (supra), the Court held that the nature of the conspiracy
and the role of the accused can be inferred from the cumulative
evidence, which in this case includes confessions, arrests, and
the petitioner's connection with the co-accused.
10. In light of the above and following the guidelines in Bhajan Lal
(supra), which allow for the quashing of proceedings only in cases
where no offence is made out, this Court finds no grounds to
quash the criminal proceedings at this stage. The dismissal of the
petitioner's earlier bail applications and the ongoing trial, with
several witnesses already examined, further supports the
continuation of the proceedings. Therefore, in view of the relevant
case law, including Bhajan Lal, Toofan Singh, and Pallulabid
Ahmad Arimutta, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
