Plea Of Alibi Cannot Be Ground For Discharge In NDPS Cases: Punjab & Haryana HC

Rejecting a discharge application in a commercial quantity drug recovery case, the High Court affirmed that pleas of alibi and lack of direct recovery are matters for trial and cannot be used to nip prosecution at the threshold stage.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manisha Batra dismissed a revision petition challenging a trial court order that refused to discharge an accused implicated in a massive poppy husk seizure.

Court's Rationale on Discharge and Evaluation of Evidence

The High Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges or considering discharge, the trial court is only required to form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients of the alleged offences.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "At this stage, the trial Court is only required to form a presumptive opinion with regard to the existence of the factual ingredients breaching the threshold of the alleged offences. At the stage of formation of opinion with regard to framing of charge, the trial Court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material brought on record in the golden scale or to presume the prosecution story as gospel truth."

Addressing the evidentiary value of disclosures, the Court noted: "This is not a case where the petitioner's name surfaces for the first time in an isolated or uncorroborated disclosure statement, inasmuch as the very sequence of events, namely, the disclosure of co-accused Gurmeet Singh leading to the nomination of Janak Raj, and the subsequent disclosure of Janak Raj leading to the nomination of the petitioner, discloses a chain of circumstances connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence, sufficient to constitute a prima facie case for the purposes of Section 250 of the BNSS."

Background

The dispute originated from the recovery of 73 bags of poppy husk weighing 16 quintals 10 kilograms from a canter on April 22, 2025. An FIR was registered under Sections 15(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Following a disclosure statement by a co-accused, another individual was nominated, whose subsequent disclosure statement named the petitioner as a co-purchaser who loaded the contraband from Jharkhand.

The petitioner moved an application under Section 250 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking discharge, claiming he was falsely implicated solely on an inadmissible disclosure statement, no recovery was made from him, and he was physically present in Rajasthan at the time of the alleged purchase, relying on hotel registers, toll receipts, and photos. He also alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The trial court dismissed the discharge application. On revision, the High Court relied on precedents including P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala ( "(2010) 2 SCC 398": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 1462), Union of India Vs. Prafulla K Samal ( "(1979) 3 SCC 4": 1978 CaseBase(SC) 17), Vishnu Kumar Shukla and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ( "2024 AIR Supreme Court 90": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 60), State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao ( "2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 760), Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam and others ( "AIR 2020 Supreme Court 554": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 3725), State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap ( "AIR Online 2021 SC 210": 2021 CaseBase(SC) 1599), Umesh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( "(2013) 10 SCC 591": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 438), Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, and Jitendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan ( "2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 37": 2023 CaseBase(RAJ) 8337) to hold that the defense of the accused cannot be looked into at the charge stage and dismissed the revision petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRR-664-2026 (O&M)
Case Title: Sahdav @ Sahdev Singh v. State of Punjab
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 15215