The Doctrine of Conscious Possession under the NDPS Act and the Passengers’ Defence: A Jurisprudential Analysis of NDPS Bail Litigation

1. Introduction: The Statutory Framework and the Crisis of Presence

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), stands as one of the most stringent penal statutes in the Indian legal ecosystem, designed to combat the pervasive menace of drug trafficking with a zero-tolerance approach. The legislative intent, manifested through draconian sentencing structures and rigorous procedural bars against the grant of bail, places the welfare of society above individual liberty in cases where guilt is established. However, the severity of the Act is constitutionally counterbalanced by the high standard of proof required to fasten criminal liability. Central to this delicate equilibrium is the jurisprudential concept of conscious possession under the NDPS Act. In the specific context of vehicular interception, where contraband is recovered from a private or public vehicle occupied by multiple individuals, the law faces a critical dilemma: distinguishing between a culpable conspirator and an innocent traveler.

This extensive research report provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing “conscious possession” under the NDPS Act, with a specialized focus on the grant of bail to passengers occupying the second row (rear seat) of a vehicle where no personal recovery has been effected. The distinction is not merely academic but constitutes the difference between prolonged incarceration and liberty. When law enforcement agencies intercept a vehicle and discover contraband concealed in the trunk, door panels, or under the driver’s seat, the default investigative impulse is often to implicate all occupants under the theory of joint possession or conspiracy. However, the Supreme Court of India and the Gujarat High Court have evolved a sophisticated body of case law that rejects the doctrine of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence, necessitating specific proof of knowledge (animus) and control (corpus) for each individual accused.

The report navigates through the foundational “trilogy” of Supreme Court judgments—Avtar Singh, Sorabkhan, and Madan Lal—which serve as the bedrock for the passenger defense. It further examines the nuanced interpretative trends of the Gujarat High Court in 2022-2025, analyzing how the judiciary adjudicates bail applications under the shadow of Section 37. By dissecting the concepts of constructive possession, the evidentiary value of confessions post-Tofan Singh, and the procedural nuances of “chance recovery,” this treatise aims to equip legal practitioners with a deep, evidence-backed understanding of how to construct a successful bail strategy for the “second-row passenger.”

2. The Jurisprudential Anatomy of “Possession” in Narcotics Law

To understand the defense available to a rear-seat passenger, one must first deconstruct the legal anatomy of “possession” as interpreted by the apex courts. The NDPS Act, despite its detail, does not explicitly define the term “possession,” leaving its contours to be shaped by judicial interpretation. The concept is legally fluid, or as the Supreme Court noted, “polymorphous,” assuming different meanings depending on the statutory context.

2.1. The Dual Requirement: Corpus and Animus

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the term “possession” in Sections 20, 21, and 22 of the NDPS Act implies “conscious possession.” This legal standard requires the simultaneous coexistence of two distinct elements:

1. Corpus Possessionis: The actual physical control or the power to exercise control over the illicit object. For a passenger, this involves an inquiry into whether they had access to the contraband. If drugs are locked in a glove box to which only the driver has the key, or concealed in a distinct compartment, the passenger may lack the corpus.
2. Animus Possidendi: The mental element, signifying the conscious intention to exercise such control, coupled with the knowledge of the object’s illegal character.

In the landmark judgment of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222, the Supreme Court elucidated this distinction with clarity. The Court observed that possession is a polymorphous term that assumes different colors in different contexts. Specifically under the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court held that possession must be “conscious,” meaning the accused must have knowledge of the existence of the contraband and dominion over it. The Court stated:

“The term ‘possession’ could mean physical possession with animus; custody over the prohibited substances with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on this knowledge.”

This ruling establishes that mere physical proximity to contraband—such as sitting in the back seat of a car while drugs are in the boot—is insufficient to attract criminal liability. The prosecution must prove that the accused had dominion over the contraband and was aware of its presence. Without animus, there is no possession in the eyes of the law.

2.2. Constructive Possession vs. Joint Possession

The concept of “Constructive Possession” is a legal fiction used to impute possession to an individual who does not have actual physical custody of an object but retains the power and intent to control its disposition. In the context of a vehicle, the driver or owner is often presumed to have constructive possession of the vehicle’s contents because they exercise dominion over the conveyance itself. However, applying this doctrine to a passenger sitting in the back seat is significantly more challenging for the prosecution.

Constructive Possession: This applies when a person has the power to control the item, even if it is not on their person. For example, if a passenger has the key to a locked bag in the trunk, they have constructive possession of the bag’s contents. Joint Possession: This arises when two or more persons share dominion and control over the contraband. As observed in Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465 , possession can be joint if multiple persons share control and knowledge. However, this shared control must be affirmatively proved, not merely conjectured from their presence in the same vehicle.

The distinction is critical in bail arguments. A passenger may argue that while the driver had constructive possession of the vehicle’s contents, the passenger had neither actual nor constructive possession unless a “meeting of minds” or conspiracy (Section 29 of the NDPS Act) is established. The Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Agarwal (2022) reinforced that constructive possession requires a nexus beyond mere association.

2.3. The Statutory Presumptions: Implications of Sections 35 and 54

The NDPS Act contains reverse burden clauses that significantly impact the defense strategy, effectively reversing the traditional burden of proof once certain foundational facts are established.

• Section 35 (Presumption of Culpable Mental State): This section mandates that in any prosecution for an offense under the Act which requires a culpable mental state, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state. It is for the accused to prove the fact that they had no such mental state with respect to the act charged.
• Section 54 (Presumption from Possession of Illicit Articles): This section allows the Court to presume that an accused has committed an offense if they fail to account satisfactorily for the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.

However, the application of these presumptions is not automatic. The Supreme Court has clarified in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417 that the presumption of guilt only arises after the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the foundational fact of “possession.” The burden to prove possession remains on the prosecution and must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt. Only once physical or constructive possession is proved does the burden shift to the accused under Sections 35 and 54 to explain that possession.

For a passenger in the second row of a car with no personal recovery, the defense’s primary argument is that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational fact of possession. Since the contraband was not found on their person or in their exclusive control, the prerequisite for triggering the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 has not been met. Therefore, the burden does not shift to the accused to prove their innocence; rather, it remains with the prosecution to prove their guilt.

3. The Supreme Court Trilogy: Foundational Rulings on Passenger Liability

The defense of a “co-passenger” rests heavily on a trilogy of Supreme Court judgments that have defined the boundaries of liability for occupants of a vehicle. These cases—Avtar Singh, Sorabkhan, and Madan Lal—provide the metrics by which High Courts, including Gujarat, evaluate bail applications.

3.1. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 7 SCC 419: The Locus Classicus

Avtar Singh is widely regarded as the most significant precedent for passengers in commercial or private vehicles where contraband is found in the cargo area.

Factual Matrix: The case involved a truck intercepted by the police. The truck was carrying bags of poppy husk. One accused was driving the vehicle, while two others were found sitting on the bags in the back of the truck. The accused claimed they were merely passengers travelling in the vehicle and had no knowledge of the contents of the bags they were sitting on.

Judicial Reasoning: The Supreme Court scrutinized whether “custody or control” could be attributed to the passengers solely because of their physical location—sitting on the contraband. The Court observed that possession requires more than just proximity.

“Possession and ownership need not always go together but the minimum requisite element which has to be satisfied is custody or control over the goods. Can it be said… that the three appellants one of whom was driving the vehicle and other two sitting on the bags, were having such custody or control? It is difficult to reach such conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.”

Implications for 2nd Row Passengers: The Court acquitted the passengers, establishing that even physical contact (sitting on the bags) does not automatically equate to conscious possession if the context suggests the possibility of innocent travel. This judgment is pivotal for 2nd-row passengers where contraband is found in the boot or under a seat. If sitting on the bags was not sufficient to prove possession in Avtar Singh, sitting near them in a car—separated by seat backs or parcel trays—is an even weaker case for attributing possession. This precedent is frequently cited to argue that mere presence in a vehicle transporting contraband is insufficient for conviction or denial of bail.

3.2. Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat (2004) 13 SCC 608: The Autorickshaw Precedent

This judgment is specifically relevant as it addresses the liability of a co-passenger in a smaller vehicle (an autorickshaw), making it highly analogous to private car cases.

Factual Matrix: The police intercepted an autorickshaw carrying multiple passengers. Contraband was recovered from a bag carried by Accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 (Sorabkhan) was travelling with him in the same autorickshaw. The prosecution argued that their presence together in a small vehicle implied a conspiracy and joint possession of the contraband.

Judicial Reasoning: The Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between the person from whom the recovery was made and the co-passenger. The Court held:

“The prosecution has not produced any material whatsoever to establish that either this appellant [Accused No. 2] had the knowledge that Appellant 1 was carrying the contraband or was, in any manner, conniving with the said accused in carrying the contraband. In the absence of any such material, to convict the second appellant only on the ground that he was found in the autorickshaw, in our opinion, is not justified.”

Implications for 2nd Row Passengers: Sorabkhan establishes that mere companionship or travelling together is insufficient to prove conscious possession or abetment under NDPS Act. Unless there is independent evidence (such as intercepted conversations, previous dealings, or a confession corroborated by material particulars) showing the passenger knew about the contraband, they cannot be held liable for what a co-passenger is carrying or what is concealed in the vehicle. This judgment serves as a powerful shield for passengers who claim ignorance of their co-travelers’ illicit activities.

3.3. Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465: The Counter-Narrative

Madan Lal presents the counter-narrative and illustrates the limits of the passenger defense, particularly in the context of private vehicles.

Factual Matrix: The accused were travelling in a private car (Maruti car). Contraband was found in the vehicle. The accused claimed they were merely passengers who had taken a lift and were unaware of the contraband.

Judicial Reasoning: The Court distinguished this case from Avtar Singh. It noted that a private vehicle is not a public conveyance like a bus or a train. It is unlikely that complete strangers would be travelling together in a private car without knowing each other or the purpose of the journey. The Court held:

“Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle and… they were known to each other… it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle.”

Implications for 2nd Row Passengers: In a private vehicle, there is a stronger judicial presumption of knowledge compared to a public bus or truck. The Court infers that occupants of a private car are likely acquaintances acting in concert. However, this presumption is rebuttable. The defense must provide a plausible explanation for the passenger’s presence (e.g., carpooling, taking a lift, relationship with the driver unrelated to drugs) to shift the case back towards the Sorabkhan standard. The distinction often turns on whether the passengers can demonstrate that they were “strangers” to the conspiracy, even if they were not strangers to the driver.

4. Gujarat High Court Jurisprudence: The “No Conscious Possession” Defense

The Gujarat High Court has been particularly active in interpreting these Supreme Court precedents, often taking a nuanced view that favors personal liberty when the link between the passenger and the contraband is tenuous. The High Court’s rulings demonstrate a willingness to dissect the specific factual matrix of each case to determine whether the “passenger defense” is viable, reinforcing the principles of Conscious Possession under the NDPS Act.

4.1. Union of India v. State of Gujarat (2022)

In this significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused who was a co-passenger/companion, reinforcing the high threshold for proving Conscious Possession under the NDPS Act.

Factual Matrix: The case involved an appeal against the acquittal of an accused who was found in a vehicle where contraband was recovered. The prosecution argued that the presence of the accused in the vehicle was sufficient to establish joint possession.

Judicial Reasoning: The High Court reaffirmed that “No Conscious Possession” is a valid ground for acquittal. The Division Bench observed that if the view taken by the trial court (that mere presence does not prove possession) is a possible view, the High Court should not interfere. This reinforces the Sorabkhan principle that without specific evidence of knowledge, a passenger cannot be convicted. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove a “mental state of possession” which requires awareness of the contraband’s nature and presence.

4.2. Ezazbhai @ Badshah Hanifbhai Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (November 2024)

In this recent bail order , the Gujarat High Court dealt with a classic “passenger defense” scenario involving a commercial quantity of contraband.

Factual Matrix: The applicant sought regular bail, arguing he was falsely implicated simply because he was present in the car from which contraband (91 gms of Mephedrone – commercial quantity) was found. The State opposed bail, arguing “conscious possession” due to his presence in the vehicle.

Legal Analysis: While the specific outcome (grant or rejection) is context-dependent, the case highlights the centrality of the “mere presence” argument in Gujarat’s legal discourse. The defense relied heavily on the argument that no recovery was made from the person of the applicant and that he had no knowledge of the contraband concealed in the car. This line of reasoning directly invokes the Sorabkhan and Avtar Singh precedents, suggesting that even in commercial quantity cases, the lack of personal recovery can be a decisive factor for bail.

4.3. Prakash Ambalal Patel v. State of Gujarat (November 2024)

This case involved a driver of a passenger van claiming the drugs were planted or belonged to a passenger. While this is a driver’s defense, the converse logic applies to passengers. The court’s willingness to entertain bail applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (the new code replacing CrPC) indicates that procedural changes have not diluted the substantive requirement of conscious possession under the NDPS Act, reinforcing the principle that attribution of possession requires specific evidence linking the individual to the contraband, distinct from general control over the vehicle.

4.4. Gulabbhai Mitthalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

In older but binding judgments like Gulabbhai Mitthalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , the Gujarat High Court explicitly held:

“Mere presence in a vehicle as a passenger would not fasten the passenger with the knowledge of all the articles being carried in the vehicle by the driver or the other passengers travelling in the vehicle.”

This judgment is crucial for a 2nd-row passenger defense. It recognizes the reality that a passenger in the back seat may not know what is in the glove box, under the driver’s seat, or in a bag kept by another passenger. It serves as a strong precedent for arguing that the presumption of knowledge does not extend to all parts of the vehicle for every occupant.

5. Strategic Legal Analysis: The “Second Row” Defense Strategy

When representing a client arrested as a rear-seat passenger with no personal recovery, the legal strategy must focus on dismantling the “conscious possession” narrative to overcome the Section 37 bail bar under the NDPS Act, 1985. This involves a multi-pronged approach that targets the physical, procedural, and evidentiary weaknesses of the prosecution’s case.

5.1. Deconstructing “Custody vs. Control”: The Physical Layout

The defense must highlight the physical layout of the recovery to negate the element of corpus possessionis.

• Contraband in Dashboard/Gear Console: If the contraband is found in the dashboard or gear console, a passenger in the second row has no physical access or control over these areas while the vehicle is in motion. This lack of physical control shifts the burden entirely to the prosecution to prove animus (knowledge).
• Contraband in the Boot: While the boot is part of the vehicle, access to it is typically controlled by the driver. Unless the passenger’s luggage is also in the boot and mixed with the contraband, the link is tenuous.
• Concealment: If the drugs are concealed inside door panels or a secret cavity, the “innocent passenger” defense is strongest. It is unreasonable to expect a passenger to be aware of structural modifications or hidden compartments in a vehicle they do not own.

5.2. The “Chance Recovery” Doctrine and Section 42 Compliance

If the vehicle was stopped for a routine traffic check or a prohibition (liquor) check and drugs were found accidentally, this constitutes a “Chance Recovery”.

• Legal Impact: In Sorabkhan, the SC held that strict compliance with Section 42 (recording information in writing) might be excused in chance recoveries. However, the standard for proving conscious possession remains high.
• Defense Argument: In a chance recovery, there is no prior intelligence or “secret information” linking the specific passenger to the drug trade. The police stumbled upon the drugs. This lack of prior targeting supports the “innocent traveler” defense, as there is no pre-existing evidence of the passenger’s involvement in a conspiracy.

5.3. Navigating the Public vs. Private Transport Nuance

While Madan Lal suggests a presumption of knowledge in private cars, the Gujarat High Court has shown flexibility based on the nature of the travel.

• Ridesharing/Carpooling: If the car was being used as a taxi (even an informal one) or if the passenger was merely getting a lift (common in rural Gujarat/Rajasthan), the Avtar Singh logic applies. The defense should produce evidence of the passenger’s independent purpose for travel (e.g., attending a wedding, job interview, visiting a relative) to explain their presence in the vehicle separate from the drug conspiracy.
• Relationship Analysis: If the passenger and driver are not related or close friends, the presumption of a “meeting of minds” is weaker. CDR analysis showing a lack of prior communication can be vital.

5.4. The Impact of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021)

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 is a game-changer for passenger bail.

• The Ruling: Confessional statements made to NDPS officers under Section 67 are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used to convict the accused.
• Application to Passengers: Often, the only evidence linking a silent passenger to the concealed drugs is their own “confession” (extracted in custody) or the driver’s “confession” claiming “we are all in this together.” Post-Tofan Singh, these statements are inadmissible. Without independent corroboration (such as fingerprints on the bag, incriminating chats, or financial transactions), the prosecution’s case against a passive passenger collapses. The defense must rigorously challenge any reliance on such statements during bail arguments.

6. Bail Jurisprudence: Overcoming the Section 37 Bar

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities:

1. The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application.
2. The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of such offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

6.1. “Reasonable Grounds” via Lack of Conscious Possession

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 held that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable cause to believe the accused is not guilty.

The Argument: The defense must argue that the “reasonable grounds” for believing the accused is not guilty stem directly from the lack of “conscious possession.” If the passenger was in the back seat, no recovery was made from their person, and there is no admissible evidence (post-Tofan Singh) of knowledge, the court has valid grounds to believe the passenger is innocent. The lack of corpus (control) and the unproven animus (knowledge) creates a substantial doubt about the passenger’s guilt, satisfying the first limb of Section 37.

6.2. Recent Trends: Bail Despite Commercial Quantity

Recent judgments show a trend of courts granting bail to co-passengers even in commercial quantity cases where the link to the contraband is weak.

• Abhimanyu Das v. State (2023): Bail was granted to a co-passenger sitting in the car. The court held that knowledge could not be attributed without physical recovery from the accused.
• Allahabad High Court (2024): In a case involving a car passenger, the court cited Avtar Singh and Mohd. Nawaz Khan, granting bail because “conscious possession… does not seem to be correct” for a passenger merely sitting in the vehicle.
• Orissa High Court: In Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha (2022) , the court granted bail, citing Avtar Singh, observing that mere presence in a vehicle does not prove possession.

These rulings reinforce the position that the “2nd row passenger” is a distinct category of accused, entitled to a more liberal application of bail norms compared to the driver or the owner of the contraband.

7. Comparative Table: Key Judgments on Vehicle Passengers

The following table summarizes the key Supreme Court and High Court judgments relevant to the “passenger defense,” highlighting the specific factual matrix and the outcome in each case.

Case Title	Court	Year	Key Facts	Outcome	Legal Principle Established
Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab	SC	2002	Passengers sitting on bags of poppy husk in a truck.	Acquitted	Custody/control must be proved; merely sitting on bags is insufficient to prove possession.
Sorabkhan v. State of Gujarat	SC	2004	Contraband found in autorickshaw; Accused 2 was co-passenger.	Acquitted	Knowledge must be proved; mere presence in a vehicle with a co-accused carrying drugs is insufficient.
Madan Lal v. State of HP	SC	2003	Passengers in a private car; claimed they took a lift.	Convicted	In private cars, occupants usually know each other; possession can be inferred unless a valid explanation is given.
Union of India v. State of Gujarat	Guj HC	2022	Co-passenger/companion accused.	Acquitted	Upheld “No Conscious Possession” defense for companions; High Court deference to trial court’s acquittal view.
Mohd. Nawaz Khan v. UOI	SC	2021	Contraband concealed in car wiper; occupants knew each other.	Bail Denied	Knowledge inferred from the specific hiding place and the relationship between occupants; S. 37 bar applies.
Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha	Orissa HC	2022	Passenger in jeep with ganja.	Bail Granted	Cited Avtar Singh; mere presence does not prove possession; doubt regarding knowledge/control sufficient for bail.
Ezazbhai v. State of Gujarat	Guj HC	2024	Passenger in car with commercial quantity (Mephedrone).	Bail Proceedings	Defense centered on “mere presence” doctrine; highlights continued relevance of Sorabkhan in Gujarat courts.

8. Conclusion: The Path to Liberty for the “Second Row” Passenger

The jurisprudence surrounding the grant of bail to second-row passengers in NDPS cases represents a critical intersection of statutory enforcement and constitutional liberty. While the NDPS Act, 1985, creates a presumption of guilt for conscious possession, the courts have consistently protected the “innocent traveler” from being swept up in the dragnet of vicarious liability.

The analysis of Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court rulings leads to the following definitive conclusions for legal practitioners:

1. Possession is Not Automatic: The mere presence of an individual in a vehicle where drugs are found does not automatically transfer possession to them. Under the NDPS Act, the doctrine of “conscious possession” requires the prosecution to independently prove the passenger’s animus (intent/knowledge) and corpus (control).
2. The “Rear Seat” Advantage: Passengers in the rear seat enjoy a spatial and legal distance from contraband concealed in the front (dashboard/driver’s seat) or the boot. Courts, including the Gujarat High Court, have demonstrated a willingness to accept that a rear-seat passenger might be genuinely unaware of the driver’s illicit cargo, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence.
3. The Avtar Singh & Sorabkhan Shield: These two judgments remain the strongest jurisprudential armor for passengers. They establish that even physical proximity (sitting on bags) does not suffice without proof of “custody or control.” Legal arguments should heavily leverage these precedents to dismantle the prosecution’s theory of joint possession.
4. Bail Strategy under Section 37: For a bail application to succeed, the defense must aggressively argue that the lack of personal recovery and the “passive” nature of the passenger’s role create “reasonable grounds” to believe in their innocence. The inadmissibility of confessions post-Tofan Singh significantly strengthens this argument, as the prosecution often lacks other evidence to prove the passenger’s state of mind.

In summary, while the NDPS Act is designed to be draconian, the judiciary has carved out a “passenger exception” rooted in the fundamental logic that penal statutes cannot punish mere association or unfortunate presence. For a law firm, highlighting these nuances is crucial for effectively representing clients who find themselves in the wrong car at the wrong time, transforming a presumption of guilt into a “reasonable ground” for liberty.

References:

• Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 7 SCC 419.
• Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 13 SCC 608.
• Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 7 SCC 465.
• Union of India v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 1533.
• Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 6 SCC 222.
• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.
• Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417.
• Ezazbhai @ Badshah Hanifbhai Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail).
• Prakash Ambalal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2024).