The Rajasthan High Court has discharged a distant brother-in-law of an NDPS co-accused, holding that a bare assertion that he ‘cooperated’ with the principal accused, resting on co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot supply the ingredients of abetment and conspiracy under Section 29.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a criminal revision and discharged a man of the charge under Sections 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that the prosecution material did not disclose his specific role and that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession against him. [Bheru Lal S/o Shankar Lal Aheer v. Union of India (Through NCB)]
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali set aside the charge, while preserving proceedings against the remaining accused persons.
Background
The petitioner is a distant brother-in-law of co-accused Rameshwar. According to the prosecution, his implication rested on statements of co-accused Rameshwar and Kalu recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and on a sum of Rs 68,500 recovered from him, which the prosecution alleged was meant as payment to narcotics officials for securing favours. The petitioner challenged the framing of the charge under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
What the Court said
The Court noted that the petitioner was not present at the place of search and no contraband was recovered from him. It found the allegation that he ‘cooperated’ with the principal accused to be without particulars.
“The expression ‘cooperated’ is conspicuously bereft of particulars.”
“The prosecution material does not specify whether the petitioner allegedly procured any contraband, transported it, stored it…”
Relying on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that statements recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as confessional statements, and that without independent material the petitioner’s link to the alleged narcotics activity rested only on those statements.
“A bare assertion that the petitioner ‘cooperated’ with the principal accused…cannot by itself supply the missing ingredients of Section 29.”
Referring to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 on the standard at the stage of framing charge, the Court observed:
“The material must disclose the ingredients of the offence with sufficient factual specificity to warrant the accused being put to trial.”
Operative order
The revision petition was allowed, the charge under Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act was set aside and the petitioner was discharged. Proceedings against the other accused remain untouched. The allegations against the other accused are untested, the Court has expressed no view on their merits, and the presumption of innocence applies.
Why The Rajasthan High Court Order Matters
The order reiterates that in NDPS prosecutions the charge under Section 29 must rest on specific facts, and that a family link, a visit to detained relatives or a cash recovery without a proven connection to the offence, coupled with co-accused statements under Section 67, does not meet the threshold for trial.
Case Title: Bheru Lal S/o Shankar Lal Aheer v. Union of India (Through NCB) | S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 284/2024 | Order dated 28 September 2026 | Bench: Justice Farjand Ali
Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, Mr. Aidan Chaudhary, Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary. For the Respondent: Mr. Thana Ram Bishnoi, Mr. Gopal Singh (for CBN).
READ ORDER: Bheru Lal v. Union of India