Commercial Quantity Heroin Recovery at Airport: Delhi HC Holds Four Years' Custody Alone Not Ground for Bail [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that four years of custody alone is not a ground for bail in a commercial quantity heroin recovery case under the NDPS Act, when the accused fails to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37.

Robert Sengozi, a Ugandan national, filed a bail application seeking regular bail in a case registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi, under Sections 21 and 23 of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution, on 4 February 2022, the applicant was intercepted by Customs officials while trying to exit through the Green Channel at IGI Airport. He initially denied carrying any contraband, but his behaviour appeared suspicious.

He was taken to the Customs Preventive Room, where notices under the Customs Actand NDPS Act were served. During inquiry, he voluntarily admitted that he had ingested capsules containing narcotic substances.

The applicant first ejected 18 capsules at the airport and later ejected 12 more capsules at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital under medical supervision. In all, 30 capsules containing white powdery substance were recovered, which later tested positive for heroin. He was arrested on 14 February 2022.

The applicant’s counsel argued that there were infirmities in the prosecution case, including issues relating to Section 50 of the NDPS Act and delay of about four months in drawing samples and sending them to the CFSL. They also argued that he had been in custody for nearly four years, violating his right to speedy trial.

The Customs Department’s counsel opposed bail and argued that 382 grams of heroin was recovered from the applicant, which was above the commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams. It also pointed out that eleven witnesses had already been examined and the trial was not stagnant.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the recovery attracted the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court observed that there was sufficient material against the applicant, including his admission and the recovery of 30 capsules from his body.

The court explained that Section 50 compliance and delay in sampling were matters for trial. It also observed that delay in sampling would not vitiate the case unless prejudice, tampering or break in chain of custody was shown.

The court held that long incarceration alone cannot justify bail when the twin conditions under Section 37 are not satisfied. It also observed that the applicant, being a foreign national, may be a flight risk. The bail application was dismissed.

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