2025 (6) TMI 280 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of Regular bail - Smuggling - concealing narcotic substance in the body - non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act - prior information and recording thereof before interception search and seizure - HELD THAT - There can be no doubt that the applicant was under the custody of the respondent since the time of his interception on 21.05.2025. As pointed out hereinabove The Handing Over Taking Over memos prepared by the Customs clearly show the transfer of applicant s custody from one officer to the other of the respondent. It is further recorded therein that appropriate procedure was to be followed as per the Customs Act 1962 or NDPS Act 1985 meaning thereby that the concerned Officers were conscious of the fact that the applicant was being detained for suspicion of commission of offence punishable under the NDPS Act. It is the case of the respondent itself that the applicant had admitted that he was carrying capsules of contraband for which he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital for ejection. Although the case of the respondent is that there was no prior information with regard to the applicant however the two documents as pointed out hereinabove i.e. panchnama dated 26.05.2023 and seizure memo under Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act dated 26.05.2023 clearly records the fact that there was specific intelligence with regard to arrival of the present applicant with the allegedly recovered contraband. In the present case admittedly the documents of the respondent shows that there was specific intelligence/prior information with regard to the arrival of the present applicant with the contraband. It is however the case of the respondent in the complaint filed before the learned Special Court that the applicant was intercepted on the basis of suspicion/profiling. The sequence of events and record would reflect that from the very interception the respondent had reasons to believe that the applicant was carrying the contraband recovered - The respondent was bound to comply with the aforesaid provisions from the time the applicant was intercepted at the IGI Airport. In any case when the first set of capsules were seized by panchnama dated 21.05.2023 the respondent was bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is pertinent to note that the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent only on 26.05.2023. The respondent without producing the applicant within 24 hours of his detention continued to keep him in Safdarjung Hospital till his final arrest on 26.05.2023. In view of the above this Court holds that the applicant was kept in illegal custody by the respondent from 21.05.2023 to 25.05.2023. His arrest on 26.05.2023 stands vitiated. The rights of the applicant guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated and therefore he has to be released on bail despite the restrictions provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The applicant has been in judicial custody since the date of his formal arrest i.e. 26.05.2023 and has undergone incarceration for more than 2 years as of today. Conclusion - The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25, 000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court further subject to the fulfillment of conditions imposed. Bail application allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether there was compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), particularly Section 42 relating to prior information and recording thereof before interception, search, and seizure.

2. Whether the applicant was legally in custody from the time of interception on 21.05.2023 or only from the formal arrest on 26.05.2023, and the implications of any illegal detention on the admissibility of evidence and validity of arrest.

3. Whether the procedural requirements under Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act concerning notices to the accused and sample collection were complied with.

4. The effect of any violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, particularly the right against illegal detention and the requirement of producing the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

5. The applicability of the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which ordinarily restricts bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding prior information and recording

The NDPS Act under Section 42 mandates that an officer empowered to conduct search and seizure must have reason to believe, based on personal knowledge or information taken down in writing, that narcotics are concealed and must send a copy of such information to his superior within 72 hours. The respondent claimed the applicant was intercepted on suspicion/profiling without prior information. However, documents including the panchnama dated 26.05.2023 and seizure memo under Section 43(a) indicated the existence of specific intelligence about the applicant's arrival with contraband.

The Court noted this contradiction and held that the respondent had reason to believe the applicant was carrying contraband from the time of interception. Therefore, the procedural requirements of Section 42 should have been complied with from that time. The failure to record prior information in writing and to send it to superior officers amounted to non-compliance of statutory procedure.

Issue 2: Whether the applicant was in custody from 21.05.2023 and legality of detention prior to formal arrest

The applicant was intercepted on 21.05.2023 and taken to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination and to facilitate the ejection of swallowed capsules. The respondent contended the applicant was not under illegal detention but was voluntarily admitted and allowed to keep his mobile phone. However, multiple "Handing Over" and "Taking Over" memos prepared by Customs officers documented the transfer of custody of the applicant between officers during this period, indicating continuous detention.

Relying on authoritative precedents, the Court emphasized that "custody" is not limited to formal arrest but includes any form of police surveillance and restriction on movement. The Supreme Court's ruling in Niranjan Singh clarified that custody involves control by law enforcement or court. Similarly, in Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, the Supreme Court held that detention without producing the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the applicant was effectively in custody from 21.05.2023, but was not produced before any Magistrate or Special Court within 24 hours, nor was any authorization for detention obtained. The respondent's failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of prompt judicial production rendered the detention illegal and the subsequent arrest on 26.05.2023 vitiated.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that medical necessity justified the prolonged detention without judicial oversight, noting that courts have recognized procedures for remand of hospitalized accused. Hence, medical condition did not excuse the non-compliance.

Issue 3: Compliance with Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act regarding notices and sample collection

The applicant argued there was non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires notice to the accused prior to search, and that the notices were not served each time capsules were ejected. Further, the sample was sent for chemical analysis well after the recovery date, and the weight of capsules was not noted at recovery.

The respondent countered that notices under Sections 102 and 103 of the Customs Act and Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served at the airport prior to search and that the applicant voluntarily consented to screening and medical examination. The panchnamas were prepared each time capsules were recovered, and samples were drawn in accordance with Section 52A.

The Court did not delve deeply into these contentions at this stage, as the primary focus was on the illegal custody and arrest issue. However, it noted the procedural irregularities highlighted by the applicant, which may be relevant at trial.

Issue 4: Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution

The Court extensively relied on constitutional jurisprudence emphasizing the right to liberty and protection against illegal detention. Article 22(2) mandates that a person arrested must be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Failure to do so results in illegal detention and vitiates the arrest.

Applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Niranjan Singh and Subhash Sharma, and High Court precedents, the Court held that the applicant's detention from 21.05.2023 to 26.05.2023 without judicial oversight violated Articles 21 and 22. This violation entitled the applicant to bail despite the gravity of the offence and statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.

Issue 5: Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and bail considerations

Section 37 of the NDPS Act prohibits bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics except under exceptional circumstances. The respondent argued that since over 950 grams of cocaine hydrochloride were recovered, bail should be denied.

However, the Court held that the illegal detention and violation of fundamental rights vitiated the arrest and seizure, thereby entitling the applicant to bail notwithstanding the restrictions of Section 37. The Court directed release on bail subject to stringent conditions including personal bond, surety, restrictions on travel, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence.

Significant Holdings:

"The word 'custody' is of elastic semantics but its core meaning is that the law has taken control of the person... He who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439."

"The continuation of the respondent in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India."

"When arrest is illegal or is vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA [analogous statutory provision]."

"The applicant was in continuous custody of the respondent from 21.05.2023 till 26.05.2023 without any authorisation... such custody without any authority and without producing him before the concerned Magistrate or Special Court within 24 hours in accordance with law is completely illegal."

"Even if the applicant was under medication for the procedure being carried out, the same cannot be a ground to keep him in custody. Magistrates exercising power of remand or otherwise in respect of persons in hospital is not unheard of and well recognised procedure in law."

"Rights of the applicant guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated, and therefore, he has to be released on bail despite the restrictions provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

The Court concluded that the applicant's detention prior to formal arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards, rendering the arrest vitiated. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to bail despite the commercial quantity of narcotics involved. The bail was granted on furnishing personal bond and surety with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and prevent tampering with evidence. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, limiting its findings to the bail application.