Co-Accused's Statement Not Enough to Implicate Under Section 29 NDPS Act: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has fortified the safeguards against arbitrary arrests in narcotics cases, ruling that the mere statement of a co-accused regarding a mobile phone's ownership, without independent corroboration or investigative links, is insufficient to satisfy the rigours of NDPS Act. The Court held that the absence of recovery from conscious possession and the lack of communication trails in Call Detail Records (CDR) create reasonable grounds to believe in the innocence of the petitioner for the purpose of bail.

Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu, presiding over the Single Bench, adjudicated the bail application arising from an interception where a significant quantity of contraband was recovered. The Bench critically examined the nexus between the petitioner and the alleged conspiracy, noting the investigative gaps in linking the digital evidence to the accused.

Key Takeaways

Bar on Hearsay Implication

Statements made by a co-accused identifying a person as an accomplice who fled the scene must be supported by corroborative material to sustain a charge of conspiracy.

Digital Evidence Verification

Ownership of a mobile phone cannot be attributed to an accused based on oral testimony if the official registration records point to a different individual and no inquiry is conducted with the registered owner.

Threshold of Section 37 Satisfied

Reasonable grounds for believing an accused is not guilty can be established when there is a total absence of recovery from their conscious possession and no connecting evidence in CDR data.

Inadequacy of Co-Accused Statements in Conspiracy Charges

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioner was primarily roped in under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which deals with abetment and criminal conspiracy. It was noted that when the car containing the contraband was intercepted, another individual was apprehended who claimed the petitioner had fled the spot and that a mobile phone recovered from the co-accused's pocket belonged to the petitioner. However, the Bench highlighted that the mobile number was registered to a third party, and the prosecution failed to conduct any investigation with the registered owner to verify the user's identity.

The Rajasthan High Court expressed that “This Court further finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the alleged offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, relating to conspiracy, primarily on the basis of the statement of a co-accused. Prima facie, the material presently available on record does not disclose sufficient corroboration in this regard... the absence of recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner, the nature of the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the petitioner may not be guilty of the alleged offence.”

Ratio

Implication in a narcotics conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused if the prosecution fails to establish a nexus through corroborative evidence such as CDR links, registration of communication devices, or conscious possession of the contraband. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are deemed satisfied where the evidence collected during investigation is prima facie insufficient to link the accused to the crime.

Background

The petitioner was arrested on February 15, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 255/2025 at Police Station Pipar Sahar. The police had intercepted a car carrying 142.380 kilograms of poppy straw, where one Mahendra Singh was caught red-handed. Mahendra Singh alleged that the petitioner, Mangilal, had fled the scene and that a phone found in Mahendra's pocket belonged to Mangilal. The petitioner was charged under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 324(4) of the BNS.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the mobile number was registered in the name of Brijpal Singh Panwar and no investigation was conducted with him. It was further argued that the CDR did not show any communication between the petitioner and the co-accused or relatives using that number. The State opposed the bail, citing the heavy quantity of contraband. The Rajasthan High Court, however, found that since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet was filed without substantive corroboration, the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4093/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:52892
Case Title: Mangilal v. State Of Rajasthan
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B.R. Bishnoi
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP with Mr. OP Choudhary

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 30794