No Prejudicial Infirmity by Customs during Seizure of Contraband u/s 110: Delhi HC Rejects Bail of Alleged Methaqualone Smuggler [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court recently vitiated the arguments raised in a Bail Application filed by an alleged methaqualone smuggler, observing that there had been no prejudicial infirmity on the end of the Customs Department during the seizure of contraband under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The observation was made by the Delhi High Court while adjudging a Bail Application filed by Sekeleti Doris, a woman who was apprehended by Custom officials in Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi while flying in from Ethiopia on intel that she would be carrying narcotics.

Empowering MSMEs: Recover Dues Easily with Samadhaan Click here to Enroll

As per the prosecution’s narrative, following preliminary questioning, the Applicant was served Notice under Section 50 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 apprising her of impending baggage search which could be done either in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate to which the apprehended woman provided her assent to being searched by any lady Customs Officer and the baggage to be searched by any Customs Officer.

Three unsealed plastic bottles containing off-white thick liquid substances were recovered from the woman’s handbag. The thick liquid was subject to the Field Drug Test Kit, with the contents testing positive for “Methaqualone”- a drug used in the treatment of insomnia but often illicitly used as a recreational drug. The off-white thick liquid was found to weigh 1,873.89 grams and valued at approximately Rs. 93.67 Lakhs.

The contraband was seized under Section 43(a) read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, alleging violations under Section 8 and 23 of the NDPS Act claiming that the drugs had been illicitly transported into India. Thus, the Applicant was arrested on 12.12.2021 and had been in judicial custody ever since. The present Application has been filed on the basis of the Trial Court’s observation that the hurdle of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not crossed by the Applicant.

Empowering MSMEs: Recover Dues Easily with Samadhaan Click here to Enroll

The Applicant, appearing through J.S. Kushwaha and Tanya Kushwaha averred fault by the Customs Authorities in carrying out due process by the Customs Authorities, alleging planting of drugs, delay in filing Section 52A Application, Issuance of Defective Proforma Notice under Section 50, NDPS Act and 102, Customs Act, Delay in Trial/Prolonged Incarceration.

The Single-Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court presided over by Justice Anish Dayal, observed that the allegations of planting of drugs and delay in filing of Section 52A Application is a matter to be decided during trial and that the Applicant may contend the same during the Trial of the matter; further, allegedly defective Notices served under Section 50, NDPS Act and 102, Customs Act would have no real effect as the contraband had been seized from her bag and not her person.

The Bench further held that the allegation of Delay in Trial, though recognized by the Supreme Court as an inalienable right under Article 21, cannot have a formulaic application. Here, the Bench referred to the decision in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India (1994) where the Supreme Court held that “when an undertrial is charged with offences with minimum imprisonment of 10 years, and if he has been in jail for not less than 5 years, he may be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.”

Empowering MSMEs: Recover Dues Easily with Samadhaan Click here to Enroll

In light of the observations, noting that the Applicant carried four times the commercial quantity of the contraband, with the matter being under trial, the Delhi High Court held that there had been no prejudicial infirmity by the Customs, citing inability to reach a prima facie conclusion that the Applicant is not guilty. Observing that the threshold of Section 37 of the NDPS had not been crossed, the Bail Application was dismissed.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates