In a landmark ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under Justice Sandeep Moudgil, denied the bail plea of Joginder Singh, reinforcing that absence from the crime scene does not absolve an individual of accountability under the NDPS Act. The petitioner was charged under Sections 15(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, for his alleged role in a conspiracy to procure contraband.
Case Background
The case began with FIR No. 13, dated February 13, 2024, registered at Talwandi Sabo Police Station, Bathinda. During routine patrolling, the police intercepted a truck carrying 300 kilograms of poppy husk concealed under a coal shipment. The vehicle was driven by co-accused Sandhura Singh and Babbu Singh, who confessed during interrogation that a portion of the seized contraband, amounting to 100 kilograms, was to be supplied to Joginder Singh.
Joginder Singh, however, was not present at the scene and argued that there was no direct evidence connecting him to the contraband, aside from the co-accused’s disclosure statement.
Legal Issues
The petition raised critical questions regarding the interpretation of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Vikramjeet Singh and Mr. Robindeep Singh Bhullar, contended that the disclosure statement of the co-accused was insufficient to implicate their client. They emphasized that no recovery was made from Singh’s conscious possession and that his alleged role as a buyer lacked substantial evidence.
On the other hand, the state counsel, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, argued that the petitioner had actively participated in the conspiracy by making an advance payment for the contraband. The state maintained that Section 29 of the NDPS Act extends to conspirators, even if they were not physically present at the scene of the crime.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that Section 29 of the NDPS Act was enacted to hold all participants in a conspiracy accountable, regardless of their physical involvement in the actual transportation or possession of contraband. The court noted:
“The frequent defense by accused under Section 29, claiming absence at the crime scene or lack of physical possession, cannot become a shield for masterminds who orchestrate these nefarious activities from behind the scenes.”
The court highlighted that allowing such defenses could undermine the law’s intent to dismantle drug trafficking networks, often managed remotely by individuals who attempt to evade accountability.
Justice Moudgil further remarked that substantial evidence, such as the petitioner’s advance payment for the contraband, established his involvement in the conspiracy. The petitioner’s prior criminal history and the likelihood of reoffending also factored into the court’s decision.
Court’s Decision
The court firmly rejected the bail plea, stating:
“To grant bail at this stage would, in effect, subtly convey a tacit endorsement or unintentional encouragement of such nefarious activities.”
Justice Moudgil underscored the need for stringent action to uphold the legislative intent of the NDPS Act and to deter individuals from engaging in drug trafficking, irrespective of the quantities involved or their absence at the scene.
