Punjab & Haryana HC: Equal Accountability for NDPS Offenders Absent from Crime Scene
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that individuals implicated in drug-related offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) should not be granted leniency merely because they were not physically present at the crime scene. Justice Sandeep Moudgil made these observations while dismissing the regular bail plea of an accused booked under Sections 15(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act in a case involving 300 kg of poppy husk.
No Leniency for Masterminds Operating from a Distance
The Court noted a troubling trend where accused persons, often implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, claim that they were neither present at the crime scene nor in conscious possession of contraband. Justice Moudgil highlighted that this defense is frequently exploited by the masterminds of drug trafficking operations who orchestrate activities remotely while using others as scapegoats.
"This practice needs to be addressed," Justice Moudgil remarked. "Individuals targeted under Section 29 are often the primary masterminds behind drug trafficking networks, orchestrating operations from a distance. Consequently, they should be held equally accountable and not afforded any leniency."
Case Background and Court Observations
The case arose from an incident where two co-accused were apprehended with 300 kg of poppy husk concealed in a truck. During the investigation, one of the co-accused disclosed that 100 kg of the contraband was intended for the petitioner, Joginder Singh. The petitioner argued that apart from this disclosure statement, which has limited evidentiary value, there was no other incriminating material linking him to the offense. Furthermore, no recovery was made from his conscious possession.
Rejecting these arguments, the Court pointed out that Section 29 of the NDPS Act specifically penalizes individuals who abet or conspire to commit drug-related offenses. The evidence, including advance payments made by the petitioner for purchasing the contraband, indicated his involvement in a criminal conspiracy. Justice Moudgil noted that “substantial evidence shows that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy aimed at facilitating the commission of an offense."
Criminal History and Risk of Reoffending
The Court also took note of the petitioner's prior involvement in a similar case, which raised serious concerns about the likelihood of reoffending. It opined that granting bail in such cases could unintentionally encourage further participation in illicit activities. “To grant bail at this stage would subtly convey tacit endorsement or unintentional encouragement of such nefarious activities,” the Court observed.
Dismissing the bail plea, the Court reiterated its firm stance on addressing the growing menace of drug trafficking. It called for an unwavering resolve to tackle both direct perpetrators and those orchestrating operations from behind the scenes, ensuring that such criminal enterprises do not undermine the rule of law.
Cause Title: JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: CRM-M-64166-2024
Date: January-08-2025
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
[Read/Download order]
