Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court

"Section 29 is not attracted merely by reason of an association, relationship or acquaintance with a person allegedly involved in an NDPS offence. The prosecution is required to place material indicating either abetment of an offence or participation in a criminal conspiracy." Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling dated 28 September 2026, held that criminal charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act cannot be framed against an accused based on vague or indeterminate allegations of 'cooperation' without specifying the nature of the overt act or the nexus with the alleged narcotic trade.

A bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the stringent nature of the NDPS Act does not lower the threshold of judicial scrutiny required at the stage of framing charges, and the court must find a "factual bridge" connecting the accused to the offence.

The petitioner, Bheru Lal, was implicated in a narcotics case after his distant brother-in-law was arrested for possessing contraband. Although the petitioner was not present at the time of the search and seizure, and no contraband was recovered from his possession, he was charged under Section 8 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act based on statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The prosecution further contended that the recovery of ₹68,500 from the petitioner, which he allegedly intended to use to secure "favourable treatment" for his relative, further established his complicity in a criminal conspiracy.

The primary question before the court was whether a charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act could be sustained in the absence of specific allegations of abetment or conspiracy. The court was also tasked with determining whether statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could form the sole basis for framing a charge against an accused in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Scope of Section 29 NDPS Act

The court emphasized that Section 29 is not a catch-all provision for those merely associated with principal offenders. To establish a prima facie case of conspiracy or abetment, the prosecution must demonstrate more than just an acquaintance. The court noted that the term "cooperated" used in the charge sheet was "conspicuously bereft of particulars" and failed to define whether the accused procured, transported, stored, or financed the contraband.

Requirement of Factual Specificity

The court held that while a mini-trial is not required at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, the court cannot mechanically accept a charge. There must be a "factual substratum" that links the accused to the specific ingredients of the offence. Without identifying a clear act of facilitation, a charge of conspiracy remains based on mere conjecture rather than legally cognizable material.

"An inference of criminal conspiracy cannot be founded merely upon a hypothesis which is itself sought to be constructed from another hypothesis."

Evidentiary Value of Section 67 Statements

Addressing the evidentiary reliance on Section 67 statements, the court reaffirmed the principles established in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. It held that since such statements are not admissible as substantive confessions, they cannot supply the missing ingredients of an offence at the stage of framing charges. The court remarked that when Section 67 material is excluded, the prosecution’s case against the petitioner crumbled as there was no independent evidence connecting him to the narcotic activity.

Nature of Circumstantial Evidence

Regarding the recovery of cash, the court held that the possession of ₹68,500, even if accompanied by an intent to seek help from officials, does not automatically constitute participation in a narcotic enterprise. Without a demonstrable nexus—such as evidence that the cash was proceeds of crime—it cannot be transmuted into proof of conspiracy. The court reiterated that the "stringency of the statute cannot substitute the absence of the essential factual nexus."

"The stringent nature of the statutory scheme of the NDPS Act cannot, conversely, become a reason for lowering the threshold of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charge."

Concluding that the material on record failed to disclose the requisite foundational ingredients for an offence under Section 29, the High Court allowed the revision petition. The order of the trial court framing charges against the petitioner was set aside, and the petitioner was discharged from the proceedings. The court clarified that this discharge does not affect the ongoing trial against other accused persons.

Date of Decision: 28 September 2026