‘Would mean conducting a mini trial before the actual trial’: Rajasthan HC refuses to quash NDPS charge sheet

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to quash a charge sheet against a 24-year-old Udaipur man accused in a 55-kg ganja recovery case. His claim that he was picked up from home and the contraband was planted must be tested at trial, the Court held — not in writ jurisdiction. Justice Farjand Ali passed the order on 10 April 2026 in a petition filed by Vijay Meena, currently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur.

On 8 April 2025, the then Station House Officer of Ambamata Police Station in Udaipur, Mukesh Soni, claimed to have received secret information. The tip-off named one Vishal, who had allegedly taken a house on rent in Eklavya Colony, Hitesh Nagar, and was using it to stock ganja.

A police team reached the spot at about 5:00 PM. Two rooms on the ground floor were found locked. After gaining entry, the police say they recovered eight bags containing ganja — 55.526 kilograms in total. Four people were present: Vishal Rawat, Dinesh Bheel, Vijay Meena, and Kishan Bheel. SIM cards, mobile phones and ATM cards were also allegedly seized.

FIR No. 157/2025 was registered at Ambamata Police Station under Sections 8/20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Those provisions punish the possession and sale of cannabis, the abetment of such offences, and criminal conspiracy. The investigation ended with a charge sheet on 3 October 2025.

Vijay Meena, through his father Gautam Lal, then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. That provision lets High Courts issue writs to protect legal rights. He asked the Court to quash the entire proceedings arising out of the charge sheet.

Counsel Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan, appearing for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, put forward a very different version of the day. According to the petition, Vijay Meena was unlawfully detained from his own house at about 4:13 PM on 8 April 2025 — well before the alleged recovery. CCTV footage, it was claimed, corroborated this.

The petitioner’s case was that he was then forcibly taken to another premises where the ganja had already been planted. The FIR, he argued, was registered at 5:00 PM to falsely place him at the scene. There was no link between him and the rented room. His father had submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, but no action was taken.

Deputy Government Advocate Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit appeared for the State, along with CI Karan Singh and CI Mukesh Soni from Ambamata Police Station. A substantial quantity of ganja had been seized, they submitted, and the procedure under the NDPS Act had been followed. The petitioner’s claim of false implication, they argued, was a defence to be tested at trial, not in a writ petition.

Justice Ali framed the question in simple terms. The petitioner was not challenging a legal flaw on the face of the record. He was disputing the prosecution’s factual story — the timing of the memos, the sequence of events, whether he was even there when the bags were opened. Those are evidentiary questions.

The judgment set out the stages a criminal case moves through. Investigation comes first, then the police report under Section 173 CrPC, cognizance by the competent court, framing of charges, prosecution evidence, and finally the defence case. “The stage of adjudication of rival factual claims and appreciation of evidence,” the Court held, “is thus statutorily reserved for trial.”

In practical terms, this means a CCTV clip or a claim that a memo was pre-dated is something a Sessions Judge weighs after hearing witnesses on oath. A High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot decide those things on affidavits alone.

The Court was particularly blunt about the risk of doing so. Entering into an evaluative exercise on the recovery memo, the arrest memo and the sequence of events at this stage, it observed, “would mean conducting a mini trial before the actual trial.” If the High Court started weighing witnesses now, it would pre-empt the trial court and prejudice both sides.

Justice Ali also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan vs Swarn Singh @ Baba, decided on 12 February 2024. That decision built on State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi. Those rulings hold that an accused’s right to produce defence material does not arise at the pre-trial or charge stage. It crystallises only when the defence evidence is being led. Letting an accused bring in defence material before then, the Supreme Court said, runs against the statutory scheme of criminal trial.

Applied to Vijay Meena’s case, this meant his attempt to impeach the prosecution story on the basis of CCTV footage, memo discrepancies and a claim of false implication was premature. None of it was being shut out. It just had to be raised at the right stage.

The Court disposed of the writ petition. All the issues raised — the legality of the recovery, the authenticity of the memos, and the allegation of false implication — were kept open for trial. Justice Ali directed that the trial court will decide those contentions on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observation in the order. The petitioner retains liberty to produce all relevant material, including the claimed CCTV footage, at the appropriate stage.

Case details