The high court said before inferring any act of conspiracy, there has to be a positive evidence about such an agreement to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means and it must be prior and must have a meeting of minds. There is hardly any positive evidence to convince this court that all accused with common intention agreed to commit unlawful act, said the order. Rather, the investigation carried out till this date suggests that (Aryan and Arbaaz) were travelling independent of (Munmun) and there was no meeting of minds, it said. There is no material on record to infer that applicants have hatched conspiracy to commit a drug offence, hence difficult to infer at this stage that they are involved in an offence of commercial quantity, held the HC in its reasoning, released on Saturday. While Aryan was released on October 30, the two others were released from jail later. Justice Sambre clarified a position in law and stated that "confessional statements" recorded under Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act can be considered only for investigation purpose and cannot be used as a tool for drawing inference that the applicants have committed an offence under the Act as has been alleged against them. The high court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Toofan Singh which said NCB officers are also police officers and confessional statements recorded by them are not admissible evidence and rejected agency's claims that Khan and the two others had accepted their involvement. Once the confessional statement of the applicants/accused cannot bind them of the offence in view of the Judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Toofan Singh , the claim put forth by the Respondent (NCB) that accused persons have accepted their involvement in the crime is liable to be rejected, it said.