Bombay High Court
IRSHAD IKBAL INAMDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that no prima facie case exists against the applicant due to lack of evidence linking him to the auto‑rickshaw or the contraband, and therefore allowed the revision and discharged him.
Summary
The applicant, Irshad Ikbal Inamdar, challenged the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting his discharge application in a drug seizure case. The prosecution alleged that 74.672 kg of ganja seized from a co-accused's house was transported in the applicant's auto‑rickshaw, citing call records and a panchanama. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, noting that the auto‑rickshaw was never seized, its registration was not mentioned, and no evidence showed his ownership or possession of the vehicle. The court examined the evidence and found that mere call records with relatives and the unverified panchanama did not establish a prima facie case against the applicant. Consequently, the court held that proceeding with the trial would amount to an abuse of process. The revision application was allowed and the applicant was discharged in the special case.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicant.
- Whether call records and a panchanama are sufficient to link the applicant to the transport of the seized ganja.
- Whether the trial against the applicant should continue or be discharged on grounds of insufficient evidence.
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- prima facie case
- insufficient evidence
- drug seizure
- auto rickshaw
- abuse of process
- call records
Judgment
6-REVN-449-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 449 OF 2025
Irshad Ikbal Inamdar ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
by SONALI
SONALI SATISH
KILAJE
SATISH
KILAJE
Date:
2026.08.24
10:59:07
+0530
Mr. Rajendra Bidkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Smt. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for the Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this application is to the impugned order dated
08.09.2025 passed below Exhibit-16 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhiwandi, whereby the discharge application of the applicant is
rejected.
2. It is prosecution’s case that, on the basis of source information,
police conducted raid at the house of co-accused Kamal Hasan Raza Ansari
and in the said raid, three gunny bags consisting Ganja, weighing 74.672
kg, were found. It is alleged that the said Ganja was carried to the house
of the co-accused in the auto rickshaw of the applicant and the applicant
was in continuous contact with the co-accused.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
Page 1 of 3
6-REVN-449-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused No.1 is the
brother-in-law of the applicant, whereas accused No.2 is the mother-in-law
of the applicant. It is submitted that the calls exchanged between the
applicant and co-accused were on account of their familiar relationship.
Though, prosecutions alleges that Ganja was carried in auto rickshaw of
the applicant, no evidence has been produced on record to show that the
applicant owned or possessed the auto rickshaw. Except call records, no
other evidence has been on record to connect the applicant with the
present crime. There is no case made out against the applicant, but this
fact is not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has passed an
erroneous order and requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the Ganja seized from the
house of the co-accused was carried in the auto rickshaw of the applicant.
The applicant had conversations with the co-accused. The call records
produced on record show that the applicant was in contact with the co-
accused. The panchanama shows that the Ganja was carried in the auto
rickshaw of the applicant. The applicant has antecedent of similar nature.
There is prima facie case against the applicant. The learned Sessions
Judge has passed a well reasoned order, no interference is required in it
and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet
Page 2 of 3
6-REVN-449-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
and documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicant
are that the seized contraband was carried in the auto rickshaw of the
applicant, but the said auto rickshaw has not been seized by the police nor
registration number of the alleged auto rickshaw is mentioned in the
chargesheet. No document has been produced on record to show that the
applicant owned or possessed any auto rickshaw. The co-accused are the
relatives of the applicant. Mere call records with the relatives cannot
connect the applicant with the present crime. As there is no evidence on
record to establish that the applicant owned or possessed any auto
rickshaw or said auto rickshaw has not been seized. No prima facie case is
made out against the applicant. However, this fact is not considered by the
learned Sessions Court. In absence of sufficient evidence connecting the
applicant with the alleged crime, continuation of trial against him would
amount to be an abuse of process of law and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant is discharged in Special Case No. 438 of
2022 arising out of C.R.No. 866 of 2021.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…