Neeraj Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J

This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused-Neeraj Singh, challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985 Anuppur, District Anuppur in Case No.13/2025 with the prayer for discharging the petitioner from the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Taking this Court to the FIR and other documents as well as memorandum dated 23/10/2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material available on record against the petitioner for framing charges under the aforesaid sections and in fact, the petitioner is known as Neeraj Singh, son of Surendra and not as 'Daddu'; whereas only on the premise that a person named 'Daddu' has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and other documents including memorandum, the petitioner has been implicated falsely and without taking care of the same, the Court below has framed charges against the petitioner. Placing reliance on the order/decision dated 13.09.2021 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.1341/2021 (Anoop Jaiswal alias Jassa Vs. State of M.P.) (at Jabalpur), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be discharged.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that there is sufficient material available against the petitioner and no illegality has been committed by Trial Court while framing charges against the petitioner, who was involved in the offence along with other co-accused.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the present case, a person named 'Daddu' has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and on the basis of memorandum under Section 23(2) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the petitioner has been arrested.

In the present case, only question involved is as to whether the petitioner-Neeraj Singh is also known as Daddu or not. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid is a matter of evidence and at the present stage, in absence of any other material available on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not known as Daddu.

In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Anoop Jaiswal @ Jassa (supra)is distinguishable on facts.

Resultantly, declining interference in the impugned order, this criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.