Mr. Anup Kr. Das, Mr. Uday Chauhan and Ms. Aayushi Gupta, Advs v. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

BAIL APPLN. 2848/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 2848/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22194/2025 CHIGOZIE EMMAUEL ORJI .....Applicant Through: Mr. Anup Kr. Das, Mr. Uday Chauhan and Ms. Aayushi Gupta, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE .....Respondent Through: CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R D E R% 31.07.20251.The present application is filed seeking regular bail in SC No. 422/2024 arising out of criminal complaint filed by the respondent department for offences under Sections 21 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. 2. It is alleged that on the basis of secret information, on 30.12.2023, the applicant, who is a Nigerian national, was apprehended by DRI officers at the IGI Airport, Delhi when he arrived from Lagos. On persistent enquiry, the applicant allegedly admitted voluntarily that he was carrying some capsules containing narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances in his body. Pursuant to the same, the applicant was admitted to Dr. RML Hospital on the same day. On 09.01.2024, the Hospital authorities informed that the applicant had eased out sixty capsules. Allegedly, the said capsules were found to contain This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:15 BAIL APPLN. 2848/2025 Page 2 of 6 990.1g of Cocaine. 3.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4.He submits that the sampling of the contraband was not in accordance with the standing orders and Section 52A of the NDPS Act as the substance allegedly recovered from the capsules was mixed before weighing each capsule. He further submits that although the substance was seized by the Investigating Officer on 09.01.2025, however, the same was deposited in the godown on 10.01.2025 at 5:30 PM. He submits that the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out in such circumstances. 5.He further submits that there are no recovery witnesses in the present case and the panch witnesses were only called to the hospital on 09.01.2024 after recovery of the substance. He submits that the absence of photography and videography also casts doubt on the case of the prosecution. 6.He submits that the applicant has been in custody since 30.12.2023 and only one out of the twenty six prosecution witnesses has been examined till now. He further submits that the applicant has clean antecedents. 7.I have heard the counsel and perused the record. 8.It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:15 BAIL APPLN. 2848/2025 Page 3 of 6 accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc. 9.In the present case, it is alleged that commercial quantity of Cocaine was recovered from capsules that were ejected by the applicant. Once the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, as provided under the Section, the Court can grant bail only when the twin conditions stipulated in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are satisfied in addition to the usual requirements for the grant of bail– (1) The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence; and (2) That the person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10.It is argued on behalf of the applicant that doubt is cast on the recovery as the panch witnesses were only called to the hospital on 09.01.2024 after the capsules had been allegedly been ejected by the applicant. It is further submitted that there is irregularity in the sampling procedure and the drawn samples cannot be stated to be representative of individual capsules. Furthermore, it is argued that since the substance remained in the custody of the investigating officer, therefore, the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. 11.It is pertinent to note that the applicant had purged out the capsules over a course of 11 days between 30.12.2023 and 09.01.2024. The copy of the panchnama indicates that the hospital authorities had provided the recovery memos as well as the sealed envelops containing the capsules on 09.01.2024, from which, the sample was drawn. Merely because the panch This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:15 BAIL APPLN. 2848/2025 Page 4 of 6 witnesses did not witness the recovery of the capsules, at this stage, the same does not cast reasonable doubt in favour of the applicant. Moreover, a bare perusal of the complaint indicates that as per the prosecution, the applicant had ejected the capsules under medical supervision. The doctors in whose presence the capsules were ejected have been listed as witnesses by the prosecution. While the veracity of the case of the prosecution as well as the evidence of the doctors will be tested during the course of the trial, however, at this stage, the allegation that the applicant ejected 60 capsules prima facie appears to be credible. 12.Insofar as the argument regarding improper procedure of sampling is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v.Kashif: 2024 INSC 1045 has held that delayed compliance or non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act cannot be treated as an illegality which would entitle the accused to bail or vitiate the trial on the said ground alone. It was held that the Court would need to consider all circumstances to find out whether any serious prejudice is caused to the accused. This Court, in Sovraj v. State : 2024:DHC:5009, held that the accused persons cannot be allowed to go scot free on minute irregularities in procedure of sampling especially when the prosecution has not had the opportunity to furnish an explanation. 13.In the present case, one capsule was randomly selected and the substance in it was found to be Cocaine on texting with the field-testing kit. Subsequently, one sample was drawn from the six bunches created by cutting 10 capsules respectively. Although the applicant has pointed to the irregularity in the sampling procedure, however, at this stage, the applicant has not This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:15 BAIL APPLN. 2848/2025 Page 5 of 6 endeavoured to establish a prima facie case as to how he has been prejudiced by the sampling procedure. 14.It is also argued that the contraband was deposited belatedly by the concerned officer in the godown. No argument has been tendered as to why the officials will seek to falsely implicate the applicant. It is also relevant to note that the recovery has been effected in the present case on the basis of prior secret information. While the reasons for the delay will be seen during the course of trial, at this stage, considering the nature of recovery as well as the material available against the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has not been able to establish any reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the alleged offence. 15.Insofar as the ground of delay is concerned, while it is trite law that long period of incarceration is a relevant factor for considering the application for bail, however, the same cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. In the present case, serious allegations have been framed against the applicant and he has only spent over a year and a half in custody and the matter is at the stage of prosecution evidence. It is pertinent to note that charges have been framed against the applicant for the offences under Sections 21(c) and 23 of the NDPS Act. The imprisonment for the said offences cannot be less than 10 years. It cannot be presumed at this stage that the trial will not conclude within reasonable time. 16.In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has not made out a prima facie case for grant of bail. 17.The present bail application is therefore dismissed. 18.It is clarified that any observations made in the present This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 11:51:15 BAIL APPLN. 2848/2025 Page 6 of 6 order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. AMIT MAHAJAN, JJULY 31, 2025