New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed the arraignment of a woman accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that there was no useful purpose in prosecuting her since no contraband was recovered from her and no confession could be relied on, and observing that police should be more sensitive in such cases because a user at the end of the chain is, in one way, a victim.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on 09.10.2026 in a Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3435 of 2026, titled Sanjana Bhaskaran v. State of Telangana & Anr. The appeal challenged the judgment dated 29.12.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
The appellant was the 4th accused in a case under the NDPS Act. The allegation was that she had received a packet from co-accused, two of whom were apprehended along with her, containing dried leaves and buds with a strong odour, later identified as marijuana. A medical test allegedly detected that she had used marijuana. The alleged sellers were caught near an educational institution with a much larger quantity, kept in the Scooty on which they came, and they disclosed the name of their supplier, who is also an accused.
According to the prosecution, the Sub-Inspector of Nandigama Police Station received credible information that two persons were coming to sell marijuana near a college, and a police team with two government employees as panch witnesses reached the spot at about 2:30 pm. At 3:00 pm, two persons arrived on a Scooty and halted about 100 metres away. The appellant is said to have emerged from the college, approached them, and received a cover that she kept in her bag. The police then moved in, and it was alleged that she produced the cover from her bag voluntarily.
The Court noted that, even according to the police officers' statements, no recovery was made from the appellant or from the bag she carried. It observed that when the police saw her put the cover in the bag, they should have informed her of her right to be examined before a Magistrate and carried out the search only if she consented. The claim that she produced the cover voluntarily, it said, itself raised suspicion about her knowledge that it held contraband. The entire case against her, the Bench noted, rested on the confession of the co-accused, who had commercial quantity with them, and her own confession.
The State submitted that the appellant was apprehended at the scene and had voluntarily produced the contraband. It added that, under a Government notification, prosecution would not be pressed if she agreed to undergo a de-addiction process.
The Bench was not persuaded. It held that no confession can be relied on and that, with the contraband not recovered from the appellant, there would be no useful purpose served in prosecuting her. It said the police should be more sensitive in such matters, since the appellant, in one way, is a victim, being last in the chain of supply.
The Court cautioned that prosecuting such victims can have a spiralling effect, and that incarceration pending trial can lead to the more disastrous consequence of the victim joining the supply chain, solely because of associations developed in prisons. It concluded that "Curbing availability and breaking the supply chain shall be the focus" and not merely punishing the user, who is actually the victim.
The Bench clarified that it had not looked at the case of the other accused in S.C. NDPS No. 91/2025, pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rangareddy District, LB Nagar.
Insofar as the appellant is concerned, her arraignment in the Sessions Case stands quashed. The Court said it was not persuaded to subject her to a de-addiction process either, since it found no complicity on her part regarding the allegations of conscious possession of narcotics. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were rejected.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan and Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advocates; Ms. Goldy Goyal, AOR.
For the Respondents: Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR; Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru and Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Advocates.
Case Title: Sanjana Bhaskaran vs. State of Telangana & Anr., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3435 of 2026
.jpeg)
