NDPS Act | Accused Not Present At Crime Scene Should Be Held Equally Accountable Without Leniency: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that accused persons who are not present at the crime scene should be held equally accountable and should not be afforded any leniency under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

The Court highlighted that there is a frequent practise to implicate individuals who are not present at the crime scene and this defence of "false implication" is often misused by the masterminds of drug trafficking.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "an additional aspect that must be considered by this court is the frequent practice where individuals implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act assert that they were neither present at the scene nor had any contraband in their conscious possession."

The Court further said that taking advantage of this defence, many such accused persons are granted bail.

"However, this practice needs to be addressed, as individuals targeted under Section 29 are often the primary masterminds behind the drug trafficking networks, orchestrating operations from a distance while using others, typically those found in direct possession of the drugs, as scapegoats. Consequently, the court is of the firm opinion that in such cases, these individuals should be held equally accountable and should not be afforded any leniency", it added.

These observations were made while hearing the regular bail plea of an accused booked in a drugs case under Sections 15(c)(Punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw), 29(Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of NDPS Act.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that he has been nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by his co-accused namely Sandhura Singh, who has disclosed that out of the total contraband 100 kg of Poppy Husk was to be supplied to the present petitioner and apart from that there is no other incriminating material against the petitioner to connect him in the commissioning of offence.

Moreover, no recovery has been affected from the conscious possession of the present petitioner, hence, the prosecution has no case against the petitioner except the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which has no evidentiary value, he added.

After examining the submissions the Court noted under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, individuals can be prosecuted if they are found to be buyers of contraband, especially in the context of conspiracy or abetment related to drug offenses.  

Justice Moudgil observed that Section 29  specifically addresses the penalties for those who assist or participate in a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under the NDPS Act.

In the present case, the Court noted that the evidence presented in relevant documents and the First Information Report indicates that the petitioner was involved as a buyer in a conspiracy, which could invoke the provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

"This section emphasizes that "whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence" is subject to punishment under this law. Buyers can be implicated under this section if there is adequate evidence demonstrating their involvement in a conspiracy related to drug trafficking," the judge said. 

The Court found that there is substantial evidence showing that the petitioner made an advance payment for purchasing contraband and "reasonably concluded" that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy aimed at facilitating the commission of an offense.

It also took note of the petitioner's criminal history, marked by involvement in one another similar case, and opined that it "raises serious concerns about the likelihood of reoffending."

Stating that whether trafficking in small or intermediate quantities, must be met with unwavering resolve and stringent action and the intent of the legislature and the sanctity of the rule of law must be upheld at all costs, and cannot be allowed to be undermined, regardless of the quantity involved, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Robindeep Singh Bhullar, Advocate the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

 Title: JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 27

Click here Ito read/download the order