Table of Contents
Section 29 NDPS Act: Conspiracy and Abetment in Drug Offenses
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is India’s principal legislation aimed at combating drug abuse and illicit trafficking. Among its various provisions, Section 29 plays a pivotal role in widening the legal net to include not just the perpetrators of drug crimes, but also those who facilitate or conspire to commit them.
What Does Section 29 NDPS Act Cover?
Section 29 deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It covers a wide range of acts including:
- Production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase
- Transportation, warehousing, import, export, and transshipment
- Use or consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
Key Provisions:
- Abetment: Any person who aids, encourages, or facilitates the commission of a drug-related offense can be punished under Section 29.
- Criminal Conspiracy: Mere planning or agreement between two or more individuals to commit an NDPS offense—even if the offense has not yet occurred—is punishable under this section.
Punishment Under Section 29 NDPS Act:
The quantum of punishment under Section 29 mirrors that of the principal offense involved:
- For small quantities, the penalties may be lenient.
- For commercial quantities, the punishment is severe—often a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment along with substantial fines.
- Intent to commit, abet, or conspire is a critical element for liability.
Section 29 thus ensures that even indirect involvement in the commission of narcotics offenses attracts strict legal consequences.
Can Police Arrest Under Section 29 NDPS Act?
Yes. Law enforcement agencies are empowered to arrest individuals under Section 29 for abetment or conspiracy of any NDPS-related offense. The arrest can be made on:
- Reasonable Grounds: Sufficient belief based on material or evidence that the person was involved in planning or facilitating the offense.
- Surveillance and Communication Evidence: Intercepted calls, chats, messages, or informant inputs often form the basis for invoking Section 29.
However, the mere allegation is not enough for conviction—concrete and credible evidence is essential.
Bail Under Section 29 NDPS Act and the Challenge of Section 37
Granting bail under the NDPS Act—particularly in cases involving commercial quantities—is governed by Section 37, which imposes strict limitations:
- The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty.
- The Court must also be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
As a result, obtaining bail under Section 29 can be extremely difficult, especially in serious cases.
Section 29 NDPS Act vs. Section 120-B of IPC: A Comparison
While both deal with criminal conspiracy, their scope and context differ:
| Feature | Section 29, NDPS Act | Section 120-B, IPC |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Conspiracy or abetment related specifically to NDPS offenses | General conspiracy to commit any offense under IPC or other laws |
| Applicability | Drug-related offenses only | All criminal acts |
| Punishment | Based on the nature of the NDPS offense; harsher for commercial quantities | Varies with the severity of the planned offense |
| Nature | Special legislation with strict standards | General criminal law provision |
In many narcotics cases, both sections may be invoked to strengthen the prosecution’s case.
How a Person Becomes an Accused Under Section 29 NDPS Act
An individual can be charged under Section 29 even without direct involvement in handling drugs. The prosecution often relies on various forms of evidence, including:
- Planning or Coordination: Evidence of organizing, financing, or facilitating drug crimes.
- Communication Records: Chats, emails, call logs suggesting involvement.
- Statements from Co-Accused or Witnesses: Disclosures indicating shared intent or knowledge.
- Financial Records: Unexplained cash flows linked to the narcotics trade.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Repeated presence at crime-linked locations, meetings with traffickers.
- Confessions: Legally admissible statements supporting conspiracy (not made to police officers unless recorded under Section 164 CrPC).
Mere association with accused persons is not sufficient—courts require demonstrable intent and participation in the conspiracy.
Landmark Example: Aryan Khan Case
A notable example involving Section 29 is the Aryan Khan case, where the son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Key Facts:
- No recovery of drugs was made from Aryan Khan.
- He was not the host of the alleged cruise party; he was a guest.
- The NCB invoked Section 29, alleging a conspiracy based on WhatsApp chats.
Court’s Observation:
- The Bombay High Court noted no evidence of a “meeting of minds” or an agreement between the accused to commit an NDPS offense.
- The court found the WhatsApp chats inconclusive and non-incriminating.
- It held that mere presence at the venue or association with other accused persons was insufficient to invoke Section 29.
- Consequently, Aryan Khan was granted bail, and the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 were held not applicable due to the absence of commercial quantity involvement.
Conclusion
Section 29 of the NDPS Act is a powerful legal tool that extends accountability to those who enable, support, or conspire in the commission of drug offenses. However, its stringent nature also necessitates robust evidentiary backing to sustain charges and secure convictions.
If you or someone you know is accused under Section 29, it is crucial to seek expert legal representation to challenge the allegations, especially in the absence of direct involvement or concrete proof of conspiracy.
