Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Foreign National Accused of Drug Trafficking - 2024-02-27

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Foreign National Accused of Drug Trafficking

Background:

• The petitioner, Habibullah Nabi Zada, a foreign national, was arrested in 2020 for allegedly smuggling heroin into India.
• The prosecution alleged that Zada and his co-accused, Abdul Wadood Ahmadi, arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi on a flight from Afghanistan and were found to have swallowed 15 capsules each containing heroin.
• The total weight of the heroin recovered from Zada was 225 grams, which is considered an intermediate quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Legal Question:

• The primary legal question in this case was whether the quantity of heroin recovered from Zada and his co-accused could be combined to determine whether the offense fell within the definition of a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

Arguments Presented:

• Petitioner's Arguments:

  • The petitioner's counsel argued that the quantity of heroin recovered from Zada alone, which was 225 grams, did not meet the threshold for a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
  • He further argued that the heroin recovered from his co-accused could not be attributed to Zada since he did not have physical possession or control over it.
  • The petitioner's counsel also argued that the statements made by Zada and his co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were inadmissible as evidence due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Toofan Singh v. State of Kerala.

• Respondent's Arguments:

  • The prosecution argued that the total quantity of heroin recovered from Zada and his co-accused, which was 450 grams, constituted a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
  • The prosecution also argued that the statements made by Zada and his co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were admissible as evidence.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning:

• The court held that the quantity of heroin recovered from Zada and his co-accused could not be combined to determine whether the offense fell within the definition of a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
• The court reasoned that there was no cogent and convincing evidence to establish a conspiracy between Zada and his co-accused.
• The court also held that the statements made by Zada and his co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were inadmissible as evidence.

Decision:

• The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

Significance:

• This decision highlights the importance of establishing a conspiracy between co-accused in order to combine the quantities of contraband recovered from them for the purpose of determining the nature of the offense under the NDPS Act.
• It also reinforces the principle that statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings.