Implicated Under Section 29, No Connecting Evidence: Rajasthan High Court Finds Section 37 Met, Grants NDPS Bail

Police at a routine blockade stopped a motorcycle; the pillion rider threw a bag and fled, and 167.02 grams of 'MD' was recovered from the rider's jacket (para 3). Sohel Khan and Hanif were implicated with the aid of Section 29 in this case under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act, and the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh, refused them bail (paras 1, 3). Sohel Khan is alleged to have supplied the contraband and Hanif to be its end user; their counsel relied on the Investigating Officer's admissions in cross-examination (paras 4, 4.1). The Public Prosecutor invoked the NDPS Act's embargo, citing a commercial quantity (para 5).

Both were implicated with the aid of Section 29; the recovery was from the co-accused rider (para 7). The Court held: "prima facie, there is no connecting evidence to link either of the accused-applicants with the alleged offence" (para 7). Nothing was recovered from them, and neither person on the motorcycle had named them; apart from the alleged identification of the place on their disclosure statement, nothing on record established their involvement (para 7). The Investigating Officer's cross-examination confirmed that no call details were collected to link those on the motorcycle with either applicant, and no WhatsApp chats or other electronic communication were recovered (para 7). Sohel Khan only said that a person from Gujarat approached him, naming no one (para 7). The Rs 80,000 UPI transaction relied on against Hanif was reflected in the account of a third person who was not made an accused, and its purpose was never investigated; without further corroboration it did not prima facie connect them with the offence (para 7). The twin conditions of Section 37 were held satisfied, fortified by the absence of criminal antecedents of an identical nature (para 8). The filed charge-sheet and likely long trial also weighed (para 9).