Chhattisgarh HC Questions Bilaspur Police Probe in NDPS Case

The Chhattisgarh High Court has questioned the investigation process followed by Bilaspur Police in an NDPS case involving the alleged seizure of 2,925 clonazepam tablets from a woman's house in Sarkanda. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal questioned how the police officer who recorded the initial complaint and was involved in registration of the FIR could subsequently be appointed as the investigating officer in the same case. The court has sought a response from the Director General of Police through an affidavit, with the matter scheduled to come up again on August 24.

The case relates to a police raid at a house in Bandhwapara, under Sarkanda police station, where officers claimed to have recovered 2,925 clonazepam tablets, identified in the case as the drug sold under the brand name Rivotril. The woman was booked under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and has reportedly remained in custody for around seven months. Her family has disputed the prosecution's version and alleged that she was falsely implicated. Her brother has specifically alleged a conspiracy involving Sarkanda Police, the woman's brother-in-law Ramkishore and ASI Shailendra Singh. These allegations have not been independently established. According to the petitioners, the packet containing the tablets was not recovered directly from the woman. They claim that a child, aged around 14, found the packet on the terrace while flying a kite and, after checking information about the medicines on a mobile phone, informed his mother. The family says the packet was subsequently kept near the staircase as an unwanted object before police action was taken. The petitioners have sought an investigation into how the packet reached the terrace, where it came from and the circumstances in which the woman was arrested. They have also sought forensic examination of the child's mobile phone.

Court Questions Investigation

During the hearing, the division bench focused on the role of ASI Shailendra Singh in the case. The petitioners told the court that the officer had recorded the initial dehati nalishi, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, and was subsequently entrusted with the investigation. The same officer is also stated to have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the woman. The court questioned the propriety of this arrangement and sought an explanation from the DGP. The bench has also directed that information concerning the past conduct and service record of ASI Shailendra Singh be placed before it.

The petitioners have raised another concern regarding the treatment of the minor who allegedly found the packet. They told the court that no FIR had been registered against the child, yet police allegedly took him to the station and kept him there for around 10 hours. They have sought an impartial examination of the entire episode, including the alleged recovery, the source of the tablets and the role of the people involved in the case. The court's order to seek an affidavit from the DGP means the police will now have to explain the procedure followed in the investigation and address the questions raised by the bench. The next hearing on August 24 is expected to provide further clarity on the court's concerns and the response from the police administration.