Drug User Is 'a Victim': Supreme Court Quashes NDPS Case Against College Student, Declines De-Addiction Condition

Acting on information that two persons were coming to sell marijuana near a college, Nandigama police kept watch with two panch witnesses (para 3). The appellant allegedly came out of the college and was handed a cover by the two, which she put in her bag; police apprehended all three and say she produced the cover voluntarily (paras 3-4). The packet held marijuana, she tested positive for marijuana use, and the two sellers had a larger quantity in their scooter (para 2). She was arrayed as the fourth accused in S.C. NDPS No. 91/2025 before the Special Sessions Judge, Rangareddy (paras 2, 7), and appealed against the Telangana High Court's order of 29.12.2025 in CRLP No. 14974/2025.

Even on the police team's statements, nothing was recovered from the appellant or her bag (para 3). When the police saw her put the cover in her bag, they should have told her of her right to be examined before a Magistrate and searched her only if she consented; the version that she produced it voluntarily also raises doubt whether she knew it held contraband (para 4). The case against her rests entirely on the confessions of the two co-accused, who had a commercial quantity, and her own (para 4). No confession can be relied on, and with nothing recovered from her, prosecuting her would serve no useful purpose (para 6). The police should be more sensitive: she is in one way a victim, being last in the chain of supply, and prosecution and custody pending trial can draw such victims into the supply chain through associations formed in prison (para 6). The focus must be on curbing availability and breaking the supply chain, not merely on punishing the user (para 6).