The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that proximity to contraband found on another person’s vehicle does not, by itself, establish conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. In granting regular bail to a pillion rider, the Court emphasized that criminal liability requires proof of intentional control and awareness - not mere association.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, was arrested alongside Rajvir Singh alias Raju after police recovered 600 grams of heroin from a cloth bag hanging on the left handle of a motorcycle. The petitioner was the pillion rider; Rajvir Singh was the rider and owner of the motorcycle. The bag, containing the contraband, was visibly attached to the handlebars and belonged to Rajvir Singh. The petitioner had no prior criminal record and was not seen handling the bag.
Procedural History
- 19 November 2024: Police conducted a search at T-Point Mamdot Road near a brick kiln, following a routine narcotics patrol.
- 20 November 2024: FIR No. 178/2024 registered under Sections 21, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act against both individuals.
- 20 November 2024: Petitioner taken into custody without bail.
- 26 February 2026: Petitioner filed a bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband, that the trial was at an early stage with only one of fifteen witnesses examined, and that he had no criminal antecedents.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether conscious possession under Section 21 of the NDPS Act can be inferred solely from the fact that an accused was a pillion rider on a motorcycle where contraband was visibly attached to another person’s property.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had no control over the bag, which was clearly attached to the handle of Rajvir Singh’s motorcycle. The petitioner was not seen touching or handling the contraband. The prosecution had not established any link between the petitioner and the bag, nor had it proven that he knew of its contents. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Rajesh v. State of Haryana, which held that possession requires dominion and knowledge, not mere presence.
For the Respondent
The State did not dispute the factual posture but contended that the petitioner’s presence with the co-accused, his familial relationship (first cousin), and the location of the contraband in close proximity supported an inference of joint possession. However, no specific statutory or precedential authority was cited to substantiate this inference.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the doctrine of conscious possession as interpreted in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that possession must be voluntary, intentional, and with knowledge of the nature of the substance. The Court noted that the bag was not on the petitioner’s person, nor was it secured in a manner suggesting his control. The fact that the bag was hanging on the handle of the rider’s motorcycle, and that the rider had signed the Section 50 NDPS notice, further undermined any claim of the petitioner’s dominion.
"Mere proximity to contraband, without evidence of control, knowledge, or intent, cannot sustain a charge of possession under the NDPS Act. The law does not presume guilt from association."
The Court also considered the petitioner’s clean antecedents, the prolonged pre-trial custody of over three months, and the fact that the trial had barely progressed, with only one witness examined out of fifteen. The Court held that these factors, combined with the arguable nature of the possession charge, satisfied the conditions for bail under Section 483 BNSS.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that conscious possession cannot be presumed from proximity alone and granted regular bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bond and refrain from influencing witnesses. The Court explicitly clarified that this order does not prejudge the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conscious Possession Requires More Than Proximity
- Practitioners must now challenge charges of possession where contraband is found on another person’s property, especially when the accused had no physical control or access.
- Prosecution must adduce direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the contraband - mere presence or association is insufficient.
Bail in NDPS Cases Must Reflect Trial Stage and Custody Duration
- Courts are increasingly granting bail in NDPS cases where custody exceeds three months and trial progress is minimal, even for serious quantities.
- Clean antecedents and lack of prior involvement are now decisive factors in bail applications under Section 483 BNSS.
Section 50 NDPS Notices Are Critical for Validity
- The fact that only the rider signed the Section 50 notice, and not the petitioner, further weakens the prosecution’s case.
- Defense counsel should highlight non-compliance with Section 50 procedures as a ground for challenging admissibility of evidence.
