Delhi High Court: In a bail application wherein, the accusedaccused had been apprehended collecting a parcel from DTDC containing commercial quantity of LSD paper blots, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J, held that merely receiving a package, being unaware of its illicit contents, does not amount to ‘conscious possession’ under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). Thereafter, the Court allowed release of the accusedaccusedon bail after furnishing a personal bond and surety of Rs. 25,000.
Background
In the instant application, the Narcotic Control Bureau (‘NCB’) had apprehended one individual in Delhi with a parcel containing 15 LSD paper blots weighing 0.3 gm. He disclosed the name of his co-conspirator, on whose directions he was acting. The co-conspirator further disclosed the details of another person, residing in Jaipur, as the supplier of the psychotropic substances. Search of his premises led to the seizure of 9,006 LSD blots, 2.232 kg ganja and Rs. 4,65,500 cash. He also disclosed details of four consignments out of which three contained LSD blots. The NCB intercepted the packages bound for Noida and Pune. For the consignment marked for Kottayam, Kerala, NCB laid a trap waiting at the DTDC courier office for the accused to collect the parcel. Once the accused was apprehended, NCB searched and seized the parcel containing 100 LSD paper blots weighing approximately 3.5 gm. The accused was thereafter, formally arrested for commission of offences under Sections 8 (c) read with Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The accused contended that in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, he had informed the officers that he had merely gone to collect the parcel at the behest of his neighbour and had no knowledge of its contents. He further contended that he had no acquaintance with either the consignor or the consignee. No incriminating material was recovered either from his person or his residence. There were no transactional, financial or digital records that linked him with the other co-accused or a broader drug distribution network.
The NCB on the other hand submitted that the Call Detail Records showed multiple calls made by the accused to the DTDC courier office to inquire about the status of the parcel. The accused had also promptly shown up as soon as he was informed that his package had arrived. The active pursuit of the parcel by the accused, while being allegedly unaware of its contents, seemed suspicious.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the quantity of LSD recovered from the accused, i.e., 3.5 gm was more than the prescribed threshold of 0.1 gm and qualified as commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, invoking the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, for grant of bail, the accused was required to fulfil the twin test under Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act:
- the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused in not guilty of the alleged offence, and
-
the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Court noted that neither any contraband substances nor any incriminating material was recovered from the accused’s person or residence. In contrast, the co-accused had been arrested pursuant to specific recoveries from their residences or based on substantive links with multiple consignments. Therefore, the case of the accused appeared to rest on a relatively lower factual substratum.
The Court further observed that there was no conclusive proof to determine whether the calls to the DTDC office were made by the accused or not since a closer inspection had revealed that the phone number, cited by the prosecution, allegedly used to contact the DTDC office, actually belonged to the DTDC Kottayam office itself.
The Court stated that the concept of ‘conscious possession’ under the NDPS Act necessitated that the person had both, the knowledge of the contraband, and the ability to exercise control over it. The prosecution was required to prove that the accused had personal knowledge of the contents of the contraband and had the intent to maintain control over it.
The Court further observed that while the true extent of the accused’s knowledge was subject to evidence at trial, the prosecution had not produced any direct or circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that the accused knew or ought to have known about the nature of the contents. Merely receiving a package, in the absence of any cogent material to suggest that the accused was aware of its illicit contents, prima facie, could not satisfy the threshold of ‘possession’ under the NDPS Act.
Thereafter, the Court opined that in absence of any corroborative evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The Court stated that the first limb of test under Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act stood satisfied since, for the limited purposes of the bail application, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence.
The Court also noted that the accused had no prior criminal antecedents. There was nothing on the record to show that he posed a flight risk or that he was likely to commit an offence while on bail. On the contrary, the accused had actively cooperated with the investigation including voluntarily handing over his mobile phone and subsequently providing the password. The Court further noted that the accused had been in jail for the last 2 years and his conduct in jail had been satisfactory. Considering all such mitigating factors, the Court held that the second limb of test under Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act also stood satisfied.
The Court directed the accused be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 and a surety for the like amount.
[Saneesh Soman v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4994, decided on 21-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Soujhanya Shankaran, Piyush Kumar, Anushka B., Vipin Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Arun Khatri SSC, Shelly Dixit, Sahil Khurana, Iracy Sebastian, Advocates
