SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
Saneesh Soman - Petitioner
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau – Respondent
Bail Appln. 591 of 2025 & Crl.M.A. 4214 of 2025
Decided on : 21-07-2025.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Soujhanya Shankaran, Mr. Piyush Kumar, Ms. Anushka B. and Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms.Shelly Dixit, Mr. Sahil Khurana and Ms. Iracy Sebastian, Advocates.

Lack of direct evidence of conscious possession under NDPS Act warrants bail when the prosecution fails to establish knowledge or control over contraband.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A & 29 - Bail application - Accused sought bail alleging lack of evidence and conscious possession of narcotics - The court found that the prosecution's case against the applicant lacked substantive evidence linking him to the contraband and acknowledged the ambiguity surrounding the allegations of conscious possession. (Paras 1, 5, 11, 12, 14)

(B) The court examined statutory presumptions under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, confirming the burden rests on the prosecution to establish possession, knowledge, and intent, rather than on the defense to prove innocence. (Paras 6, 11)

Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested while attempting to collect a parcel containing LSD blots after his neighbor requested him to do so. He argued that he had no knowledge of the contents and that the prosecution's case relied on questionable evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offence due to insufficient evidence linking him to the drug trafficking operation.

Issues: The principal issue was whether the applicant had conscious possession of the narcotics and if the evidence against him was substantial enough to deny bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that mere collection of a parcel does not establish criminal liability, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence indicating knowledge of its contents.

Result: Bail granted on strict conditions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. Through the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [“BNSS”] (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“Cr.P.C.”]), read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985[“NDPS Act”], the Petitioner seeks bail in NCB Case No. VIII/24/DZU/2023. This case relates to offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A & 29 of the NDPS Act, which is currently pending before the Special Judge (NDPS-12), Patiala House District Court, Delhi.

Factual Background

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

2.1 Acting on specific intelligence, the Narcotics Control Bureau[“NCB”] apprehended one Gajender Singh, aged approximately 23–24 years, at the DTDC Courier Office, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, while he was attempting to book a parcel. Upon search of the said parcel, 15 LSD paper blots weighing 0.3 grams were recovered from his possession. Following this, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and based on Gajender’s instance, a further search at his residence led to the recovery of an additional 650 LSD blots in his presence.

2.2 In his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Gajender confessed to his role in the attempted shipment and named one Shainu Hatwar as the person under whose instructions he was acting. Shainu Hatwar was subsequently arrested and, in her statement under Section 67, she admitted to her involvement and explained the modus operandi of the drug distribution network. She further disclosed the name and contact details of Sarabjeet Singh, a resident of Jaipur, as being the supplier of the psychotropic substances.

2.3 Acting on this information, an NCB team proceeded to Jaipur and carried out a search of the premises belonging to Sarabjeet Singh. This resulted in the seizure of 9,006 LSD blots, 2.232 kilograms of Ganja, and a cash amount of Rs.4,65,500/- from his residence. Sarabjeet Singh was arrested and, in his statement under Section 67, not only admitted to his role in the drug trafficking operation but also corroborated the version of co-accused Shainu Hatwar. He further revealed the details of four separate consignments, three of which containing 100 LSD blots, that had been dispatched by him. These included India Post consignment no. RR673997169PL and courier numbers W60822411, W60808434, and W60803432. Of these, courier W60822411 was delivered in Noida to one Manthan Raina; consignment RR673997169PL was sent to Pune; and courier W60803432 was destined for Kottayam, Kerala.

2.4 Acting on the disclosures made, the NCB successfully intercepted the consignments. One Manthan Raina, the named consignee of courier no. W60822411, was apprehended from the address in Noida mentioned on the parcel. Upon search and seizure, 84 LSD paper blots weighing approximately 0.7 grams were recovered from his possession. As regards consignment no. RR673997169PL of India Post, the same was traced to a post office in Pune, where it remained undelivered. Upon seizure and inspection, it was found to contain 5,006 LSD blots, collectively weighing approximately 84 grams.

2.5 In relation to courier no. W60803432, which had been dispatched to Kottayam, Kerala on 02nd June, 2023, a trap was laid by the NCB at the DTDC courier office in Kottayam to identify and apprehend the person who would arrive to collect the parcel. Mr. Nideesh Sankar, a DTDC employee present at the location, was requested to act as an independent witness to the search and seizure operation, and he agreed. Significantly, Mr. Sankar informed the NCB that the intended recipient of the courier had been persistently calling the office to inquire about the parcel’s status. Based on this input, Mr. Sankar was instructed to contact the said number and request the caller to visit the office to collect the parcel.

2.6 Pursuant to the trap laid by the NCB, the Applicant, Saneesh Soman, arrived at the DTDC courier office in Kottayam to collect the said par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top