A 22-year-old post-graduate student from Goa University has approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcot ic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at the Mapusa Police Station. The student has alleged that he was unlawfully apprehended in broad daylight, illegally detained for several hours without documentation, and sub sequently framed in a fab ricated anti-narcotics raid later that night. The petitioner, Leonardo Deva, currently pursuing an MA in English Litera ture, states in his writ pe tition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consti tution that he was forcibly taken into custody on May 4, 2025, from outside a parcel service shop oppo site Mapusa Police Station. He has produced 29 CCTV clips to substantiate this assertion and seeks leave to submit them on a pen drive, as the e-filing sys tem does not permit up loading video material. According to the peti tioner, the CCTV footage and contemporaneous call logs directly contradict the police version, which alleges that he was found at the Mapusa new bus stand between 9:25 pm and 10:45 pm. Instead, the footage allegedly shows him being confronted by two men—one of whom was later identified as constable Anand Rathod— who was purportedly seen snatching the petitioner’s mobile phone. The petitioner asserts that he was then dragged into a black car, although this portion of the incident occurred outside CCTV coverage and was there fore not captured. He has stated that af ter this apprehension he was taken to the Karas wada Police Outpost and detained unlawfully with out being informed of the grounds of arrest, without any written order, and without being produced before a Magistrate. Later that night, he was alleged ly transported to the new bus stand, where several police officers—including PSI Ajay Dhuri and PSI Mangesh Palni—conduct ed what he describes as a staged anti-narcotics raid. He claimed that he was compelled under threat to sign pre-typed docu ments bearing PSI Dhuri’s signature, without being allowed to read their con tents. The petitioner further alleges that his mobile phone was planted in his jacket pocket and that a Rs 200 note was inserted into another pocket to fabri cate evidence, after which staged recovery photo graphs were taken. Meanwhile, as his family had been unable to contact him since the afternoon, his father lodged a miss ing-person complaint ear lier that evening. The petitioner asserts that although the police were in possession of his photograph and fully aware that he had been in their custody since 3:56 pm, they deliberately withheld this information from his father, thereby suppressing material facts and violating the custodial safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. He also alleges non-com pliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, stating that no offer was made to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and contends that the recovery was staged with the assis tance of “stock panchas,” undermining the credibil ity of the police narrative. The petition highlights contradictions in the po lice timeline and notes that the petitioner had trav elled to Mapusa on his mo torcycle—which was later retrieved quietly by police from the site of his day time apprehension, rather than from the alleged place of arrest. He stated that although the offence alleged is bail able, his initial bail ap plications were rejected and he was released only on May 14, 2025. Alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of the criminal jus tice machinery, he seeks quashing and cancellation of the FIR, a prohibition on further investigation, return of his confiscated mobile phone, and permis sion to submit the CCTV footage physically before the Registry. The matter is expected to come up for hearing on December 17, and the Ma pusa Police have sought time to file their affidavit.
Goa University Student Moves High Court, Alleges ‘Fabricated NDPS Case’ and Illegal Detention by Mapusa Police
