NDPS | No Bail to Foreign National In Rs. 462 g Heroin Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by a Ugandan national accused of smuggling a commercial quantity of heroin into India by ingesting drug-filled capsules, holding that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were not satisfied. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that alleged procedural lapses and sampling objections are matters of trial; finds no ground to dilute statutory embargo on bail in commercial quantity cases. According to the prosecution, the accused arrived at Terminal-3 of IGI Airport from Sharjah on April 10, 2022. Though no contraband was detected during initial baggage scanning and metal detector checks, customs officials found her conduct suspicious and intercepted her at the Green Channel. After serving statutory notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and Sections 102 and 103 of the Customs Act, the officials conducted further inquiry. The accused allegedly disclosed that she had ingested capsules containing narcotic substances. She was subsequently admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where she expelled 42 capsules over several days. On testing, the capsules were found to contain diacetylmorphine (heroin), weighing approximately 462 grams — a quantity categorised as “commercial” under the NDPS Act. She was formally arrested on April 19, 2022, and a complaint was later filed after completion of investigation. The defence assailed the prosecution case primarily on procedural grounds. It was argued that the accused was illegally detained between April 10 and April 19, 2022, as she was not produced before a magistrate during this period, allegedly violating Section 103 of the Customs Act. It was also contended that the sampling process was flawed since the contents of all 42 capsules were mixed together, purportedly in breach of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/88. The defence further stressed that the accused had no prior criminal antecedents, had already undergone prolonged incarceration, and that continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Customs Department submitted that the case involved a commercial quantity of heroin, attracting the strict embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It maintained that all statutory safeguards were followed, that the accused had voluntarily consented to medical intervention, and that independent witnesses were present at all relevant stages. The prosecution also highlighted the accused’s status as a foreign national, arguing that she posed a significant flight risk. The Court noted that Section 103(8) of the Customs Act exempts authorities from obtaining prior magistrate approval when the suspect voluntarily admits concealment of contraband inside the body and consents to medical procedures. Prima facie, the court found this exception applicable in the present case. On the challenge to sampling and alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the court held that such issues are matters to be examined during trial. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024), the court reiterated that procedural irregularities in sampling or seizure do not automatically vitiate the prosecution case or justify bail at the threshold. Emphasising the gravity of the offence, the court observed that offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs carry a minimum punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment and are subject to strict bail conditions. Citing State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020), the court underscored that bail can be granted only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court found sufficient prima facie material indicating conscious possession, noting that ingesting capsules to transport drugs reflected knowledge and intent. It also expressed concern over the risk of absconding, given the accused’s foreign nationality and the sophisticated method of concealment. While acknowledging that the accused has spent over three-and-a-half years in custody and that the trial is still underway, the High Court held that the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met. The bail application was accordingly dismissed, though the court observed that the accused would be at liberty to renew her request if the trial does not progress expeditiously. The trial court has already examined 14 out of 32 witnesses, and the High Court urged that efforts be made to conclude the trial at the earliest. Case Details Case Title: Lydia Kabukazi Aloyo Versus Customs Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1429/2025 Date: 24.12.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Aniruddha Singh Rajavat Counsel For Respondent: Shubham Tyagi SSC Click Here To Read Order Read More: ICC Trademark Usage in Cricket World Cup Sponsorship Attracts Royalty Tax Under Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

NDPS | No Bail to Foreign National In Rs. 462 g Heroin Case: Delhi High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

How to Claim Up to Rs. 10 Crore Capital Gains Tax Exemption? Know Strategy

20 CA Firms and CA-Led Compliance Platforms Working Pan India Suitable for Startups and Middle-Class Individuals | 2026

Can Indian Lawyers Really Make ₹1 Crore Per Day? Truth Revealed

How to Become a GST Inspector in India?

More like this

How to Claim Up to Rs. 10 Crore Capital Gains Tax Exemption? Know Strategy

20 CA Firms and CA-Led Compliance Platforms Working Pan India Suitable for Startups and Middle-Class Individuals | 2026

Can Indian Lawyers Really Make ₹1 Crore Per Day? Truth Revealed

About us

Company

Categories