##PAGE1##

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 16.12.2025

Pronounced on: 24.12.2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 1429/2025

LYDIA KABUKAZI ALOYO .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Aniruddha Singh Rajavat,

Mr. Maneesh Bhardwaj, Mr.

Ankur Jain, Ms. Prachi Vats

and Mr. Rohan Kumar,

Advocates.

versus

CUSTOMS .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi SSC, CBIC

and. Ms. Navruti Ojha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is an application filed on behalf of petitioner Lydia

Kabukazi Aloyo, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] read with Section 439 Cr. PC for grant of

regular bail in Complaint No. 3409/2022, registered under Sections

8/21/23/28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 ["NDPS Act"], PS IGI Airport.

BAIL APPLN. 1429/2025 Page 1 of 11

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI PRUTHI

Signing Date:24.12.2025

16:45:25

Brief Facts

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.04.2022, the

petitioner arrived at Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi from Sharjah.

On the basis of suspicion, she was intercepted at the Green Channel by

Customs officials. Despite no contraband being detected during

baggage X-ray or DFMD screening, her conduct remained suspicious.

Two independent panch witnesses were called, and the petitioner,

along with her baggage, was taken to the Customs Preventive Room

for further verification.

3. Notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and Sections 102

and 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 were duly served upon the

petitioner. She was informed of her legal rights, including her right to

be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The petitioner,

in writing, consented to the search being conducted by a lady Customs

officer.

4. During further inquiry, the petitioner voluntarily disclosed that

she had ingested capsules containing narcotic substances. Pursuant

thereto, she was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital [RML

Hospital], where she was admitted under medical supervision. During

her hospitalization, the petitioner eased out a total of forty-two (42)

capsules ingested by her over multiple days.

BAIL APPLN. 1429/2025 Page 2 of 11

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI PRUTHI

Signing Date:24.12.2025

16:45:25

5. On 18.04.2022, after her discharge from the hospital, the said

capsules were opened in the presence of independent panch witnesses.

Upon testing, the contents were found to be Diacetylmorphine

[Heroin]. The total recovered substance weighed approximately 462

grams, which is a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2022 and

upon completion of investigation, a complaint was filed before the

competent court.

7. The petitioner filed bail application which was dismissed by the

court of Special Judge (NDPS)-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [“trial

court”] vide order dated 12.08.2024 primarily on the ground that

petitioner was carrying commercial quantity of contraband and that

embargo of section 37 NDPS Act is not lifted. Feeling aggrieved, the

petitioner has filed the present application.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the prosecution case is

vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the

NDPS Act and the Customs Act.

9. It was argued that the petitioner was intercepted at the Airport

on 10.04.2022 on basis of suspicion that she is carrying contraband

BAIL APPLN. 1429/2025 Page 3 of 11

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI PRUTHI

Signing Date:24.12.2025

16:45:25

and the alleged recovery of contraband was effected from the

petitioner by 12.04.2022, yet she was kept at the hospital till

18.04.2022. This extended stay of 6 days, it was argued, constitutes as

illegal detention as the procedure under Section 103 of the Customs

Act was violated, inasmuch as the petitioner was neither produced

before a Magistrate nor was judicial p