In a bail application filed before the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail in a case registered against her for the commission of offence under Sections 8, 21, 23, and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain disposed of the application while granting bail to the applicant.
The applicant, a foreign national, landed at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 02-07-2024 and was intercepted by the Customs officials on suspicion of carrying narcotic drugs. Upon scanning her baggage, she was asked to pass through DFMD, but nothing was recovered. However, she was taken to the ‘Customs Prevention Room’ at the airport itself. She was served with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962. Help was taken from artificial intelligence to make her understand the proceedings, as she understood Portuguese, French, and a little English.
During her personal search, eight capsules were recovered, which she had concealed in her undergarments. She admitted before the customs officials that she had ingested some capsules to conceal them inside her body and gave consent to undergo a proper medical procedure for extracting the same. A notice under Section 103 of the Customs Act was served, and she was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital, where she excreted 34 more capsules. Hence, a total of 42 capsules of cocaine were recovered, weighing approximately 503 grams, which is a commercial quantity.
After the applicant’s statement was recorded, she was formally arrested on 07-07-2024 and produced before the court for remand.
The bail was sought on the grounds that she was apprehended on 02-07-2024 but was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. It was also asserted that she was not made aware of her legal rights and that the use of an artificial intelligence tool was unwarranted.
The Court referred to Section 103(8) of the Customs Act and did not find any clear hint of specific willingness or admission from the bare contents of the notice. It was noted that the applicant was told that, if she so desired, her personal and baggage searches could be conducted before a Magistrate, a Gazetted Officer, or any lady officer of customs, and she consented to be searched by any such officer.
The Court found that the translated copy generated through AI did not contain her response and that it merely contained her signatures and the signatures of the person who explained the contents to her. Hence, the Court said that it was not clear whether the applicant was actually apprised of her legal rights in a manner desired and whether the search was conducted as per her response.
Further, the Court stated that it was unlawful for Customs to have apprised the applicant that she could even have been searched by any lady officer, since, as per Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the search could only have been conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
The Court stated that once the 8 capsules had been recovered, the applicant should have been arrested immediately and produced before the Court, even if further recovery was to be affected. It was said that Customs could have taken her to the hospital after court orders, or requested that the court come to the hospital for the same. Hence, it was held that the applicant was in illegal custody of Customs from the date of interception at the airport.
Referring to various decisions, the Court noted that the applicant, without any previous involvement in any other case, had remained in custody since 07-07-2024 and stated that when it comes to somebody’s life and liberty, Article 21 of the Constitution must override and prevail over the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Thus, the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with a local surety of like amount, upon the condition that she would reveal her address in advance to be verified, that she would report to the Investigating Officer on first Sunday of every month till conclusion of trial, that she would not leave Delhi without prior permission, that she would not influence any witness and that she would provide her mobile number to the IO while ensuring that the same remains active.
The Court disposed of the application while stating that any violation of the conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Rohan Gupta, Mr. Anoop Kumar Gupta
For Respondent – Mr. Vishal Chadha (Sr. Standing Counsel), Mr. Chandan Kumar
