* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 20, 2026 % Pronounced on: March 10, 2026 + CRL.REV.P. 559/2024 & CRL.M.A. 12559/2024 GOVIND BAHADUR THAPA @ RAVI SHARMA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Ms.

Deeksha Saggi, Advs.

Versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Mr.

Upasana Bakshi, Adv.

Insp. Sandeep Tushin, NR-II, Crime Branch CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By way of the present petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 05.04.2024 and 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ in SC No. 519/2021 entitled ‘State vs. Rajesh Kumar’ insofar as it directs framing of charges under Sections 29/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 13.04.2021, a secret information to the effect that co-accused Rajesh would arrive at Service Road near the Garbage Pile towards Bhalswa Dairy in a golden colour Honda City car for supplying charas. Acting upon the said information, the Police laid a trap and apprehended the co-accused Rajesh. Though nothing was recovered from the co-accused Rajesh in person, however, two packets weighing 1.560 kg and 1.600 kg of charas were recovered from his car. Thereafter, the co-accused Rajesh was arrested and, at his instance, the present petitioner and one Bhim Bahadur Budhathoki were also apprehended. During interrogation, they disclosed that they were working as drug peddler on commission basis for one Bahadur @ Dhai. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, two mobile phones were recovered from him, one of which was used by Bahadur @ Dhai to contact co- accused Rajesh. During the course of investigation, Call Detail Records, Hereinafter referred to as ‘CDR’ of the accused persons were obtained which revealed that they were in touch with each other.

3. After filing of chargesheet, the charges against the petitioner were framed on 05.04.2024 by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 12.04.2024 based on an earlier order dated 05.04.2024 passed on a similar application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC of a co-accused, Bhim Bahadur.

4. Hence, the present petition seeking setting aside of the order dated

05.04.2024 and 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that as evident from the order dated 05.04.2024, the same has been mechanically passed by the learned Trial Court without according any hearing to the petitioner. This, as per the learned counsel, is against the scheme of Section(s) 227 and 228 of the CrPC.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged recovery of the mobile phone used for communication with the co-accused Rajesh was shrouded in mystery inasmuch as a perusal of Personal Search Memo reveals that nothing (‘Nil’) was recovered from the petitioner during his personal search and though in stark contradistinction thereto, Seizure Memo records that mobile phones & SIM were recovered from the petitioner, yet the said Seizure Memo fails to disclose the place/ manner in which the same were recovered. Also, there is a mystery qua the time of recovery as well. Not only that, the said mobile phone was never sent for forensic analysis. In any event, the CDRs are not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate other evidence(s).

7. Per contra, learned APP for the State, relying upon the Status Report, submitted that the CDRs of the accused persons clearly revealed that the petitioner was in contact with the other co-accused persons as one of the mobile phone recovered from the petitioner reflects that there were 67 calls exchange