Bail In Under Section 29 of NDPS ACT

 

What is section 29 of NDPS ACT –

Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy involving the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, use, consumption, import, export, or transshipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Key Points about Section 29:

Abetment: If a person abets (encourages or assists) another in committing an offense under the NDPS Act, they can be charged and punished under this section.

Criminal Conspiracy: If two or more people conspire to commit an offense under the Act, each can be charged and punished under Section 29, even if the offense is not actually committed. Just planning and agreeing to commit the offense can be enough.

Punishment :-

The punishment under Section 29 depends on the severity of the crime and the amount of drug involved:

For small quantities, lighter penalties may apply.

For commercial quantities, the punishment can be very severe, often involving a lengthy prison sentence and/or a fine.

Intent: The intent to commit, abet, or conspire in the drug-related offense is crucial for punishment under this section.

Section 29 is meant to expand the law’s reach, making it possible to punish individuals who are indirectly involved in narcotics offenses through assistance or planning.

POLICE CAN ARREST UNDER SECTION 29 OF NDPS

Yes, under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the police can arrest individuals who are involved in abetment or conspiracy related to narcotic drug and psychotropic substance offenses. Since Section 29 targets not only those who directly commit offenses but also those who aid, abet, or conspire to commit them, it gives law enforcement the authority to take action against anyone involved in the planning or assistance of such offenses.

Here’s how arrests under Section 29 generally work:

Reasonable Grounds:

Police can arrest individuals if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person has abetted, conspired, or played a role in the commission of an NDPS Act offense.

Investigation and Evidence:

For an arrest under this section, police often need sufficient evidence or credible information pointing to the involvement of the person in abetting or conspiring. This could involve surveillance, intercepted communications, statements from informants, or confessions.

Bail Conditions:

Since NDPS Act cases are treated very seriously, bail is generally difficult to obtain, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions on bail for such offenses, often requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is innocent and that they are not likely to commit any further offenses if released.

SECTION 29 OF NDPS ACT AND SECION 120-B OF IPC ARE SIMILAR

Yes, Section 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are similar in that they both address criminal conspiracy, but they are applied in different contexts and carry specific nuances. Here’s a comparison of the two:

Section 29 of the NDPS Act

Scope: Section 29 specifically addresses abetment and criminal conspiracy related to offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This includes actions such as producing, possessing, trafficking, or conspiring to commit any offense involving narcotics and psychotropic substances.

Penalties: Punishments under Section 29 depend on the nature and severity of the underlying NDPS offense, with penalties ranging from fines to lengthy imprisonment. For commercial quantities of drugs, punishment can be very severe, potentially including a minimum sentence of 10 years, along with heavy fines.

Focus: Section 29 is tailored to specifically address the narcotics and drug trade, targeting individuals who conspire or abet these offenses, even if they are not directly involved in the trafficking or production of drugs.

Section 120-B of the IPC

Scope: Section 120-B of the IPC is a general provision covering criminal conspiracy to commit any offense, not limited to narcotics. This section applies to all criminal acts under the IPC, including theft, murder, fraud, and other crimes, along with specific or specialized laws like the NDPS Act.

• Penalties: The punishment under Section 120-B varies based on the offense planned or committed. If the conspiracy is for a serious offense (punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment of two years or more), the penalty can be equivalent to the offense itself. For other conspiracies, the punishment may be up to six months, with or without a fine.

Focus: Section 120-B is broadly applicable to any kind of criminal conspiracy, making it a general criminal law provision used widely across various cases.

Key Differences

Applicability: Section 29 is specific to narcotic and psychotropic substances offenses, whereas Section 120-B applies to all criminal offenses.

Punishment Severity: Section 29 of the NDPS Act often involves stricter punishments due to the gravity of drug-related crimes.

Practical Implication

In cases involving narcotics, authorities may apply both Section 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 120-B of the IPC to strengthen the case against conspirators. This ensures that those involved in planning, abetting, or facilitating drug-related crimes face appropriate legal consequences, given the stringent standards and high risk of harm associated with narcotics offenses.

How a person made accused under section 29 of NDPS Act

To be made an accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, a person doesn’t have to directly handle drugs or be involved in a drug transaction. Instead, they can be charged for abetment (encouraging or assisting someone in the crime) or criminal conspiracy (planning or agreeing with others to commit the crime) related to any offense under the NDPS Act. Here’s how it typically happens:

1. Direct Involvement in Conspiracy or Abetment

• If evidence shows that a person actively planned or agreed with others to commit an NDPS offense (such as drug production, trafficking, or possession), they may be charged under Section 29.
• Even if the person did not physically handle the drugs, simply being part of the planning or organization can make them an accused under this section.

2. Communication Evidence

• Phone records, text messages, emails, or social media conversations that show a person discussing, planning, or encouraging NDPS-related activities can be used to implicate them.
• Investigators often use intercepted communications, surveillance, or information from informants to establish conspiracy or abetment.

3. Association with Main Offenders

• If a person has close ties with the main accused in an NDPS case and is believed to be involved in supporting or facilitating the offense, they can be charged under Section 29.
• This may include financing drug transactions, arranging transport or storage, or knowingly renting property for drug activities.

4. Statements from Co-accused or Witnesses

• Statements from co-accused persons, informants, or witnesses can lead to a person being implicated under Section 29.
• These statements may indicate that the person was part of the planning, knew about the offense, or supported it in some way.

5. Incriminating Circumstantial Evidence

• Police may rely on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s involvement in the conspiracy or abetment of NDPS offenses.
• For example, a person might be charged if they are repeatedly present at locations used for drug storage or transportation, or if they frequently meet known traffickers or dealers under suspicious circumstances.

6. Financial Transactions and Records

• Unexplained financial transactions like large cash deposits, money transfers, or expensive purchases could be linked to drug-related earnings. This might be used as evidence of conspiracy or abetment.
• Financial documents or records linking a person to drug profits may be used to accuse them under Section 29.

7. Statements or Confessions

• If a person confesses to abetting or conspiring in an NDPS offense during interrogation, they could be charged under Section 29.
• However, NDPS cases require careful handling of confessions, as these must comply with legal requirements (e.g., confessions to police officers alone are generally inadmissible in NDPS cases).

Important Points to Note

• Bail Challenges: Since NDPS offenses are non-bailable in most cases, especially for commercial quantities, being accused under Section 29 can lead to prolonged detention.
• High Evidentiary Standards: Courts generally require solid evidence for conviction under Section 29, especially for conspiracy. Circumstantial or indirect involvement may not always be enough for conviction but can still lead to being charged.
• Legal Defense: Accused individuals often defend against Section 29 charges by challenging the evidence of conspiracy or abetment, arguing lack of knowledge or intent, or showing that they were not involved in planning or assisting the offense.

Being accused under Section 29 is serious, as the NDPS Act imposes strict and often severe penalties on those involved in drug-related conspiracies, even if indirectly.

ARYAN KHAN’S CASE IS  THE BEST EXAMPLE OF SECTION 29 OF NDPS ACT –

The Son of Shahrukh Khan ( Aryan Khan) was arrested under NDPS Act in the  section 29 of NDPS Act. It is here mention that there was no recovery from the Aryan khan and party was not hosted by him. He was the only guest of the Party.

The NCB’s case ( Narcotics control Bureau)  for denying bail rested on the presumption of a conspiracy among all the accused persons in the matter, the high court framed the primary question it needed to resolve thus: “whether there is enough material on record to prima facie infer that the Applicants have hatched a conspiracy and that the prosecution was justified in invoking provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act at this stage”? In order to reach such a conclusion, according to the court, “there has to be positive evidence about an agreement to do an unlawful act or to do lawful act by unlawful means and such agreement must proceed with meeting of minds.”

To demonstrate such an agreement, as well as justify the booking of Khan, the NCB had primarily relied on Whatsapp chats on Khan’s phone, especially the messages between Khan and Merchant, which had been furnished as evidence before the court.

However, after going through the Whatsapp chats extracted from Khan’s phone, the court concluded that “nothing objectionable could be noticed” to suggest that Khan, Merchant and Dhamecha had, along with the other accused persons, had a meeting of minds or an agreement to hatch a conspiracy to commit the alleged offence. It also referred to the fact that the investigation in the case had suggested that Khan and Merchant were travelling independent of Dhamecha, and “there was no meeting of minds” on even that among them, or between them and the other accused persons.

In the court’s own words, “[t]here is hardly any positive evidence on record to convince this Court that all the accused persons with common intention agreed to commit unlawful act.There has to be presence of basic material in the form of evidence so as to substantiate the case of conspiracy against the Applicants. Merely because of Applicants were travelling on the cruise, that by itself cannot be termed as satisfying foundation for invoking provisions of Section 29 against the Applicants.”

Consequently, the court decided that it would not be possible to conclude that the applicants had been involved in an offence of ‘commercial quantity’ of illegal drugs. As a result, the limitations on granting bail as per Section 37 of the Act, which was relied upon by the NCB for refusal of bail, would not be attracted