Conspiracy Under Section 29 Transforms Intermediate Possession into Commercial Offence: Delhi High Court Denies Bail in Ganja Case

“Coordinated Travel, Call Records and Simultaneous Recovery Are Not Mere Coincidence — They Signal a Prima Facie Criminal Design”- Delhi High Court rejected a plea for regular bail in a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ruling that though the accused was apprehended with an intermediate quantity of 1.990 kg of ganja, the charge under Section 29 (conspiracy) elevated the offence to one involving commercial quantity, thereby attracting the stringent bar under Section 37.

Justice Shalinder Kaur, rejecting the argument that bail must follow since the seized quantity was not commercial, held: “The synchronised movement of multiple individuals, from a common point of origin to a common destination, followed by the recovery of similar contraband from each, speaks to a concerted act rather than an isolated or independent instance of possession.”

“Once Section 29 is Invoked, Even Intermediate Quantity Offenders Face the Rigour of Section 37”

The petitioner, Arjun Sarkar, was arrested along with four others on July 7, 2024, near Palam Flyover, Delhi. Though the contraband recovered from him was less than 2 kg, the aggregate recovery from the group was 27.7 kg, which qualifies as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The FIR originally registered under Section 20 was later amended to include Section 29, based on findings that the accused had travelled together from Cooch Behar to Delhi, communicated extensively with each other, and were in contact with a key absconding figure named Arin.

Dismissing the argument that Section 37 conditions did not apply, the Court observed:

“Where Section 29 is invoked, and the allegation pertains to a conspiracy to commit an offence involving commercial quantity, the statutory rigour under Section 37 becomes applicable.”

“Telephonic Contact, Coordinated Movement and Recovery from Each Accused Together Form a Web of Inference”

The petitioner contended that he had no knowledge of the co-accused’s actions and that phone calls and travel were innocuous. The Court, however, rejected this as untenable in light of the call detail records and travel history, which revealed 31 calls with co-accused Deepak, 51 with Rabindera, and 17 with Pradip. All were shown to have travelled together by train and reached Delhi on the same day.

The Court stated: “The precise overlap of timing and regularity of contact between the petitioner and all other co-accused, just days and hours before the recovery of the contraband, points to a sustained and coordinated exchange and does not seem to be an innocent coincidence.”

“This is not a case of independent recovery from isolated individuals, but one that bears all the markers of an organised and planned transaction.”

“Precedents Affirm Clubbing of Quantities in Conspiracy: Aggregated Possession Attracts Commercial Threshold”

The judgment aligned with prior rulings of the Delhi High Court in Ridhm Rana v. State (2022), Sheela v. State (2023), and Awadhesh Yadav v. State (2023), which held that when conspiracy is established prima facie, the quantities seized from co-conspirators may be clubbed for the purposes of determining whether the case involves commercial quantity.

“Conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, communication records, and synchronized conduct… Once conspiracy is established prima facie, individual quantities may be aggregated.”

The Delhi High Court found that the petitioner failed to meet either limb of Section 37(1)(b)—that there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail. While acknowledging that the petitioner was a 28-year-old with no criminal antecedents, the Court held that the material placed by the prosecution met the threshold to attract statutory bar on bail: “The record as it stands, replete with coordinated communication, collective travel, and simultaneous recovery, falls far short of satisfying the first limb of the test under Section 37.”

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

Date of Decision: May 5, 2025