Bombay High Court
Yashwant Charudatta SonwaneversusThe State of Maharashtra Through Warje Malwadi pstn
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Mere presence with co-accused does not constitute sufficient evidence of conspiracy, warranting the applicant's discharge.
Summary
The applicant, a student named Yashwant Charudatta Sonwane, was arrested alongside co-accused while standing on a public road where police recovered 380 mg of LSD from one co-accused and 250 mg from another. The prosecution charged the applicant with conspiracy under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, but no contraband was found on his person and no direct evidence of his participation was produced. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's discharge application, holding there was a prima facie case. On revision, the High Court examined whether mere presence with the accused could establish conspiracy and found that it could not, noting the applicant's clean record and lack of material evidence. Consequently, the court quashed the lower court's order, discharged the applicant of the NDPS offences, and disposed of pending applications.
Issues considered
- Whether mere presence with co-accused is sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the prosecution produced adequate material to sustain the charge of conspiracy against the applicant.
- Whether continuation of the trial against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22, 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- conspiracy
- discharge
- revision
- abuse of process
- drug trafficking
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2-REVN-90-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 90 OF 2025
Yashwant Charudatta Sonwane ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Warje Malwadi Pstn ...Respondent
Digitally signed
_________________________________________________________________
by NILAM
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.Mandar Limaye a/w Mr.Vedant Bende i/b Mr.Aakash Kashale, for the
KAMBLE Date:
2026.09.24
19:15:15 +0530 Applicant.
Mr.B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP.
2. The challenge in this Application is to the impugned order
whereby Discharge Application of the Applicant came to be rejected.
3. It is prosecution case that on 13th January 2021 at around 10.15
p.m., police apprehended the Applicant and co-accused while standing on
public road. It is alleged that the police has recovered contraband of 380
milligrams (mg) of LSD from co-accused.
4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the
Applicant is a student and has no concern with the present crime. He has
no antecedents. Applicant was merely standing with his friends and
Page 1 of 4
2-REVN-90-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
nothing has been found in his possession. The contraband was recovered
from the possession of the co-accused-Mukesh Chaudhary and on the basis
of his statement, the other co-accused-Harsh Meshram, who had supplied
the alleged contraband, was arrested and from his possession police
recovered another 250 mg of LSD. Though police has charged the
Applicant in conspiracy, but no evidence is produced on record to prove
that the Applicant had conspired in the said crime. No material is
produced on record to prove the charges against the Applicant. However,
this fact is not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and
passed erroneous order and hence, requested to allow the Application.
5. It is contention of the learned APP that the police apprehended
the Applicant and co-accused at around 10.15 p.m. at Karve Nagar, Pune.
In the search of the co-accused, Police found contraband of 380 mg of LSD,
as the Applicant was standing with the co-accused. They were in
conspiracy the said contraband was brought there for sale. There is prima
facie case against the Applicant. To prove the conspiracy, evidence is
required. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned
order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the
Application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record.
Page 2 of 4
2-REVN-90-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
7. The allegation against the Applicant is that he was standing
with the co-accused in whose possession the alleged contraband was
recovered. It appears from the record that on the basis of the statement of
co-accused-Mukesh, from whose possession alleged contraband is
recovered, the other co-accused-Harsh, who had supplied the alleged
contraband, has been arrested and police recovered contraband of another
250 mg of LSD from his possession. Now the question remains is whether
the Applicant had conspired in the alleged offence. In my view, mere
presence or standing with the co-accused, by itself, cannot be construed as
sufficient evidence of conspiracy. The Applicant is student and has no
antecedents. There is no sufficient material produced on record against
the Applicant to prove the allegations of conspiracy. Hence, continuing
trial against the Applicant would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 12th June 2024 in
Special Case No.245 of 2021 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Applicant is discharged in Special Case No.245
of 2021 from the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22,
Page 3 of 4
2-REVN-90-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
and 29 of the the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
(iv) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.