SHUBHAM PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

        CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8100 of 2026

Shubham Pandey
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Deepak Kumar Srivastava,              Ganesh
                                   Shanker Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A.

Court No. - 48
                   HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
                   HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. On the matter being taken up, learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the
instant case is based on the recovery of 121.450 Kilograms of Ganja.

3. Upon the said submission being made by learned A.G.A., learned counsel
for the petitioner started misbehaving in the Court and when this Court tried
to pacify him, then learned counsel in a very aggressive mood started raising
his voice with anger on his face and shouted that he has made his submission
"Ab aapko jo order karna hai kar dein".

4. The tone and tenor of the learned Advocate was insulting in nature. On
this, we started dictating order and when aforesaid act, conduct and
statement made by learned counsel was dictated in open Court, then learned
counsel for the petitioner tendered unconditional apology. However, the act,
conduct and manner in which aforesaid statement was made is clearly
derogatory to dignity of this Court and is prima facie contemptuous in
nature, but taking a lenient view, we are restraining ourselves from taking
any further action, with the hope and trust that such incident shall not be
repeated in future. Therefore, no further action is required at this stage in the
light of unconditional apology tendered by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to
quash the impugned first information report dated 30.03.2026 giving rise to
Case Crime No.126 of 2026, under Sections 8, 20, 25 of N.D.P.S. Act and
                                                         CRLP No. 8100 of 2026
                                2


Section 207 Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi.

6. Perusal of the impugned first information report shows that in the instant
case, first information report has been registered on the basis of recovery of
121.450 Kilograms of Ganja. As per allegations made therein, it is alleged
that an information was received from an informer that two persons in white
coloured Tata Punch Car bearing registration no. UP 62 CM 7349 are
standing near Gyanpur Railway Station road and trying to sell illegal Ganja,
who may be apprehended. Subsequent to the aforesaid secret information,
police party proceeded to recover the contraband article and when they
arrived near railway line, Gyanpur road, they found that white Car was
parked there wherein two persons were sitting. Both suspected persons
sitting in the Car were apprehended, who disclosed their names as Samarjeet
Yadav and Pradeep Saroj. On their joint pointing out, 3 sacks of illegal
Ganja were recovered from the back boot of aforesaid Car. In first sack, a
total of 39 packets of Ganja were recovered and in second sack, a total of 35
packets of Ganja were recovered and in third one, a total of 40 packets of
Ganja were recovered. Therefore, a total of 114 packets of Ganja weighing
121.450 Kilograms were recovered.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is wholly
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior
motive.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the petitioner
was not arrested on the spot and nothing has been recovered from the
possession of the present petitioner. Name of the present petitioner surfaced
during the interrogation of the arrested persons. Both of them have candidly
stated that they were waiting for petitioner and two other persons for selling
the aforesaid contraband. Therefore, name of petitioner surfaced only on the
basis of the confessional statement of the two arrested persons. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case due to local
rivalry.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that from the
allegations made in the impugned first information report, prima facie no
offence, whatsoever, is disclosed against the petitioner and as such,
impugned first information report is liable to be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the
                                                           CRLP No. 8100 of 2026
                                 3


aforesaid prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that on the basis of
information given by the informer, huge quantity of narcotics contraband
(121.450 Kilograms of Ganja) has been recovered and taken into the
possession. The vehicle, used for selling of the contraband had also been
taken into possession and its recovery memo has been prepared. When the
aforesaid illegal contraband was recovered and accused were arrested on
spot, then both the accused jointly stated that they have bought this
contraband for selling it to petitioner and two other persons and that is why
petitioner is a named accused in the first information report.

11. It is next submitted by learned A.G.A. that confessional statement
recorded during the course of investigation gives an input to the
investigating agency to investigate further and is sufficient to find out the
role of co-accused, as narrated in such confessional statement. There is no
bar that investigation on the basis of a confessional statement recorded
during the course of investigation cannot be carried out.

12. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that from the allegations made in
the impugned first information report, involvement of the petitioner is writ
large on the face of it and prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against
the petitioner and the matter requires deep probe and thorough investigation.

13. Learned A.G.A. has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Md. Sahabuddin & Ors. Vs. State of Assam : 2012
(119) AIC 45; Union of India Vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande : AIR 2014 SC
3625; Hira Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 2020 SC 3255;
and State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar : AIR 2019 SC 84 and in view
thereof, no interference at this stage is required and the instant writ petition
is also liable to be dismissed.

14. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and taken into consideration a huge recovery of 121.450 Kilograms
of Ganja, that too in 114 packets, which have been into possession by the
police and due recovery memo has been prepared. It is thus clear that on the
spot, both the accused persons, who have been arrested, have clearly
confessed that they bought the aforesaid illegal contraband from Orissa from
a person, whose name and whereabouts are not known to them and were
going to deliver it to the petitioner, whose mobile number was also
mentioned by them. Their statement and mobile number of petitioner clearly
finds mention in the first information report. Prima facie after procurement
of illegal contraband i.e. Ganja, 114 packets were prepared and put in three
                                                                                               CRLP No. 8100 of 2026
                                                                     4

                                    sacks and after smuggling the aforesaid contraband, the arrested accused
                                    were waiting for the petitioner to sell the same. There is no legal bar in
                                    investigating the role of petitioner on the basis of confessional statement
                                    recorded during the course of investigation that too at the time of huge
                                    recovery of illegal contraband. It is also well established position of law that
                                    during investigation of a crime, names of accused may be added or deleted
                                    and similar is the position of sections of offences. The very objective of
                                    investigation is to find out truth that is why F.I.R.s even against unknown
                                    persons are registered and investigated. Confessional statement made during
                                    investigation provides new leads to investigators for further collection of
                                    evidence to find out the precise role of accused as well as to enquire in detail
                                    about the manner of offence.

                                    15. Further, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
                                    discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the submissions made by learned
                                    AGA for the State and keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the
                                    offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report,
                                    which clearly discloses cognizable offences against the petitioner, cannot be
                                    nipped in the bud at this nascent stage, particularly looking to a huge
                                    recovery of illegal narcotics contraband.

                                    16. Therefore, we are of opinion that impugned first information report
                                    discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner and
                                    as such, the impugned first information report cannot be quashed at this
                                    stage.

                                    17. The prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is,
                                    therefore, refused.

                                    18. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    ss
                                                                      (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad