Bombay High Court
KULDEEP SINGH HARJEET SINGH GOZRAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as premature, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the Special Judge’s orders at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, a British citizen accused under the NDPS Act of possessing cocaine, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging two orders of an NDPS Special Judge that directed the police to produce CCTV footage and call‑detail records. The petitioner alleged that the orders were not complied with and sought a contempt direction. The respondent argued that one order is under challenge in this Court and the other is pending compliance, making the petition premature. The High Court held that the writ petition was premature and that the Court could not interfere with the Special Judge’s orders at this stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court indicating that fresh applications may be filed after the pending criminal revision is decided.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Articles 226/227 can be entertained to enforce compliance with a Special Judge’s orders that are pending challenge or pending execution.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt application against the Special Judge for alleged non‑compliance of his own orders.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Writ petition
- Contempt
- NDPS Act
- CCTV footage
- Call Detail Records
- Premature application
- Criminal revision
- Special Judge
Judgment
16 WP-3978-2026.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3978 OF 2026
Kuldeep Singh Harjeet Singh Gozra …Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the SHO, ANC Worli Police Station
2. Commissioner of Police Mumbai
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP)
Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) …Respondents
4. Amit Ghogre
Mr. Karan Lalit Jain, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Walve, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for the State.
2. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
the order dated 20th June 2026 passed by the learned Special
Judge, N.D.P.S., Court Room No. 43, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay in NDPS Misc. Application No. 516 of 2026 in NDPS
Special Case No. 2433 of 2025.
Page 1 of 6
22nd September, 2026
16 WP-3978-2026.DOC
skt
3. It is the submission of Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner that by order dated 21 st February 2026 passed by
learned N.D.P.S. Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater
Bombay (CR.43) in NDPS Miscellaneous Application No. 1263 of
2025, directions are given to the ANC, Worli Unit, Mumbai to
obtain and produce CCTC footage and also CDR of the mobile
phone of the Applicant and others and that by further order dated
12th March 2026 passed by learned N.D.P.S. Special Judge below
Exhibit 42 in NDPS Special Case No. 2433 of 2025, the
Investigating Officer has been directed to obtain, preserve and
produce call details record. He submits that these orders are not
complied with and therefore NDPS Miscellaneous Application No.
516 of 2026 has been filed seeking direction to the Respondents to
follow orders passed by this Court and show cause for willful
contempt of said orders. He submits that admittedly the said
orders are not complied with and therefore a learned Special
Judge has committed an error by rejecting the application.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Walve, learned APP, at the outset
points out that the application has been rejected as it is premature.
He submits that as far as one order is concerned, the same is
Page 2 of 6
22nd September, 2026
16 WP-3978-2026.DOC
skt
challenged by the State of Maharashtra in this Court and the said
challenge is pending. As far as the other order is concerned, a
statement is made that after receipt of CCTV footage and CDR of
raiding party, they will be handed over to the Applicant. Learned
APP therefore submits that no interference in the impugned order
is warranted.
5. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set
out gist of the prosecution case. As per the prosecution case, the
Petitioner is a British citizen who is involved in a serious crime
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(“NDPS Act”) concerning narcotic substance, i.e., cocaine of 5 kgs.
and 2 gms, which is of market value of Rs.50.2 crores.
6. NDPS Miscellaneous Application No. 1263 of 2025 has been
filed by the Petitioner seeking certain directions and learned NDPS
Special Judge passed following operative order on 21 st February
2026 :-
“(i) NDPS Miscellaneous Application no.1263/2025 is
allowed as under :
(ii) Respondent no.1 shall obtain and produce CCTV
Page 3 of 6
22nd September, 2026
16 WP-3978-2026.DOC
skt
footage of the places shown and described vide para
no.8 (i) to (iv) and 8(vi) r/w pursis Exh.6, from 10:00
p.m. of 27/05/2025 to 06:55a.m. of 28/05/2025, and
CCTV footage pertaining Worli police station from
27/05/2025 to 06/06/2025.
(iii) Respondent no.1 shall obtain CDR of the mobile
phone of the applicant and others as described in the
para no.9 of the application, from 10:00 p.m. of
27/05/2025 to 06:55 a.m. of 28/05/2025.
(iv) The concerned telecommunication companies to
hide numbers of incoming and outgoing calls of the
police officials mobile phone while furnishing such
details for rest of the period, except aforesaid period. It
means they shall produce details of the period
mentioned vide clause (iii) only.
(v) The compliance report be filed within a week.
(vi) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Exhibit 42 Application in NDPS Special Case No. 2433 of
2025 was filed by the Petitioner seeking certain directions and the
Page 4 of 6
22nd September, 2026
16 WP-3978-2026.DOC
skt
said application is allowed by passing following operative order on
12th March 2026 :-
“(i) Application (Exh.42) is allowed.
(ii) The Investigating Officer to obtain, preserve
and produce call details record including location of
the mobile phone numbers of the panchas, if
panchas had possessed mobile phone numbers,
while preparing arrest panchanama dt.28/05/2025
from 02:50 hours to 06:55 hours.
(iii) Investigating Officer to file report of
compliance within a week.
(iv) Application is disposed of accordingly.”
8. The NDPS Miscellaneous Application No. 516 of 2026 has
been filed seeking direction to the Respondents to follow said
orders dated 21st February 2026 and 12th March 2026 and show
cause for willful contempt of said orders. The said application has
been rejected by learned Special Judge by specifically observing
that the said application is premature.
Page 5 of 6
22nd September, 2026
16 WP-3978-2026.DOC
skt
9. The perusal of record shows that order dated 21 st February
2026 is subject matter of challenge before this Court being
Criminal Revision Application No.265 of 2026 (Revn. APP St. No.
10960 of 2026). As far as order dated 12 th March 2026 is
concerned, a statement is recorded to the effect that the same will
be complied with after receipt of the said data.
10. In these circumstances, learned Special Judge has said that
the application is premature and therefore rejected the application.
Thus, no case is made out for interference in the impugned orders
under the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
11. Needless to observe that the Petitioner can file fresh
application after disposal of said Criminal Revision Application No.
265 of 2026 as far as said order dated 21 st February 2026 is
concerned and as far as order dated 12 th March 2026, at the
appropriate stage. All contentions in that behalf are expressly kept
open.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 6 of 6
22nd September, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.