For proving a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each and every detail of the conspiracy so long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception of the conspiracy to its end. This was held in the case of Ishika v State, [BAIL APPLN. 371/2021], by Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in the Hight Court of Delhi.
112 and 152 grams of heroin were recovered from the petitioner and the co-accused respectively. A petition was filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in pursuance to FIR registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli for the offences punishable under sections 29/21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner submitted that the contraband recovered from the petitioner was intermediate and as per the notification of intermediate quantity, the bar under section 37 of NDPS Act will not be attracted in the present case as the same is applicable only in offences involving commercial quantity.
The petitioner also submitted that both the accused persons were apprehended separately and the contraband was also recovered separately, wherein there was no element of abetment or criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and the co-accused to commit the alleged offence. To strengthen his arguments, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat: (2005) 7 SCC 550, where it was held that criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act can only be concluded if provided with complete evidence.
The Prosecution after obtaining the call records of the petitioner and the co-accused submitted that it is evidently established that the petitioner and co-accused were in Mohali and their locations were at Wazirpur and thereafter in Uttam Nagar from where they procured the contraband and were going back to Punjab. The CDR also establishes the fact that there were 22 calls between the petitioner and co-accused which evidently establishes that they had conspired together to procure and transport substance to the other state.
The court after considering the facts and evidence relied on the judgment of Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2009) 15 SCC 643, it was ruled that while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, it must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same.
The court dismissed the bail application submitted by the petitioner and stated that the Court finds no ground in granting bail.