Doniyar Vildanov vs The State Of U.P

2026 INSC 95 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025]

Doniyar Vildanov ...Appellant Versus

The State of U.P. ...Respondent JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. A search conducted on the Indo-Nepal Boarder led to

recovery and seizure of 1.900 kg of charas from a Russian

national, who was arrested and later put on trial. The

Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused to ten

years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable

under Sections 8, 20 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851 and a fine of Rs.1 lakh Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by with a default sentence of six months. The prosecution Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.01.30 11:09:38 IST Reason:

1

For brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’ Page 1 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 alleged that after entering the territory of India, 15 meters

from the Border Pillar No.517/2 (Sub Pillar), the appellant

herein was accosted and searched by a team of Sashastra

Seema Bal (SSB). On detection of the contraband in his bag,

a police team which was also engaged, along with the SSB

team, in the combing operation at the border was

summoned after which the recovery was made and the

criminal law put into motion.

3. The accused on the other hand claimed that he was

taken into custody on the previous day at the no man’s land

and on his refusal to bribe the police, a false case was

registered against him and his pet dog, accompanying him,

was also taken away by the police team. The High Court on

an appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence handed

down by the Trial Court against which the present appeal is

filed.

4. We heard Sh. R.P. Luthra, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant. The original passport of the appellant,

which was part of the Trial Court’s record, indicates the

appellant having left Nepal on 05.11.2016, while his arrest

Page 2 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 was recorded at 7.00 A.M. on 06.11.2016. It is the contention

of the learned counsel that he was produced before the

learned Magistrate after 24 hours period as stipulated in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732; to facilitate which the

arrest was recorded later. It is argued that the contraband

was planted and it was never recovered from the body of

the accused nor from his possession.

5. Learned Government Counsel vehemently supported

the prosecution case and contended that after exit from

Nepal, the accused remained in the no man’s land till he

entered the territory of India on the next day morning.

Immediately after which he was arrested on detection of the

contraband in his bag. There is no possibility of any plant

since the total value of the contraband would be almost

Twenty-three lakhs.

6. Both the Trial Court and the High Court had noted

discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution but

entered and upheld the conviction finding those to be

minor. The evidence led by the prosecution is of PW1 to

2 For brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Page 3 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 PW5. As we see from the deposition, the SSB team which

carried out the combing operation was led by PW3, a Sub

Inspector with the SSB while the police team was led by

PW1, also a Sub Inspector attached to the Sonauli Police

Station. PW2 was one of the Constables with the SSB who was

in the team of PW3. PW4 was the I.O and PW5 was a Head

Clerk attached to the Police Station, Sonauli at the time of the

registration of the FIR.

7. A reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 indicates that

it was the SSB team led by PW3, who first confronted the

accused and after having detected the contraband in his

bag called PW1 and his team, pursuant to which the search

was conducted. It is also asserted by PW1 to PW3 that before

the search was conducted, they had searched all the

members of the team to ensure that no contraband was kept

in their possession. It is also deposed that the accused was

informed of his rights to be searched before a Gazetted

Officer or a Magistrate, upon which he confessed to have

purchased the contraband from Nepal with the intention of

selling it in India and agreed to the search without the

Page 4 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It is also

stated that a consent letter was written by PW1, which was

translated into English upon which the accused signed the

documents. The translation is said to have been done by

PW3, the Sub Inspector leading the SSB team who, at the first

instance detected the contraband.

8. From the sequence of events as spoken of by PW1 to

PW3, the SSB team led by PW3 which also included PW2

intercepted the accused, detected the contraband and then

summoned PW1 and his team. It was after PW1 came to the

spot, he was informed of his rights to have a search

conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a

Magistrate, which is said to have been declined along with

a confession of the possession of charas intended for sale.

The consent letter is said to have been written in Hindi and

later translated into English by PW3, after the detection of

the contraband itself. After the consent letter was allegedly

signed by the accused only the sampling was done; the

detection of the contraband being even prior to the

Page 5 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 information of rights; to have the search conducted in the

presence of a designated authority.

9. The sequence of events as spoken of by PW1 to PW3

clearly indicate that immediately on interception the bag of

the accused was searched and the contraband detected.

The consent letter was signed after the detection was made

and then the confession was alleged to have been made.

The attempt is to say that the detection was separate from

actual seizure. However the contraband being inside the

bag of the accused there was no possibility of detection

without a search having been carried out. Obviously, the

mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the

NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit.

10. Further, it is to be observed that the original passport

which was produced before us clearly indicates the accused

having left Nepal on 05.11.2016. The site plan which was

marked as Ka.6, as available from the records, indicate that

the interception of the accused was after he entered into the

territory of India. However, there is no such entry indicated

in the passport. Even if the accused was arrested before he

Page 6 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 reached the Immigration Counter, it was the bounden duty

of the police who took him into custody to get his entry

marked in the passport at the Immigration Counter. The fact

of his exit from Nepal on 05.11.2016 and the absence of an

endorsement of his entry into Indian territory raises yet

another reasonable doubt, insofar as his interception at 7

A.M. on 06.11.2016.

11. It is also pertinent that the consent letter as available

in the records indicate it to have been written in English and

signed only by the accused. Interestingly, the evidence of

PW1 as available in the records indicate that the consent

letter was confronted to the accused who recognized his

signature. The clear deposition of PW1 was that he informed

the accused about his rights in Hindi, which was translated

into English by PW3. The consent letter also does not

indicate the signature of any of the personnel of the SSB or

the police who were at the spot.

12. Yet again, PW1 has admitted that the accused had a

pet dog accompanying him, the whereabouts of which is

neither disclosed nor is the presence of the dog entered in

Page 7 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 the Mahazar. This probablises the story of the accused in his

Section 313 questioning that the police had an eye on his

dog, which he refused to part with, thus leading to the false

accusation.

13. We cannot but notice that even the recovery Mahazar

does not indicate a bag in which the contraband is said to

have been smuggled into India. We cannot but notice that

the inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are not

minor and are glaring enough to raise a reasonable doubt

as to the complicity of the accused in the alleged smuggling

of the contraband into India. We are unable to find the

search and seizure to be in accordance with the mandatory

prescriptions and hence the foundation of the case charged

against the appellant falls apart.

14. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that

the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all

reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence

alleged against him, of bringing in charas from Nepal to

India. The judgment of the Trial Court and that of the High

Court affirming it are set aside. The accused shall be

Page 8 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025 released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The

Original Passport of the accused available in the records

shall be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant,

by the Registry with due acknowledgment taken.

15. The Criminal Appeal is allowed and the accused

stands acquitted.

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

……...…….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

...………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 30, 2026.

Page 9 of 9 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025