Mr. Pratyush Prasanna and Ms. Saumya Yadav, Advs v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 4675/2024 AHAMAD JAN SIDHIQ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pratyush Prasanna and Ms. Saumya Yadav, Advs. versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC, NCB. CORAM:HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMAO R D E R% 23.05.20251.The applicant, by way of this application, seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of Complaint No. VIII/52/DZU/2020, registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), New Delhi, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 21/23/29 of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter ‘NDPS Act’). 2.Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 05.11.2020, a secret information had been received that the present applicant Ahmad Jan Sediqi, having passport number P02100891, was arriving on flight FG313 from Kabul, Afghanistan at IGI Airport, Delhi, and that he had ingested/ swallowed large quantity of narcotic substances in the form of capsules. Pursuant to receipt of this information, a raiding team was constituted and the applicant herein was apprehended at IGI Airport on the same day. It is the prosecution’s case that he had admitted to having swallowed capsules 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 01/07/2025 at 00:22:27 containing narcotic substances and had told the raiding team that he would excrete the same through stool. Thereafter, the applicant had been taken to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi for medical assessment, and for expulsion of ingested capsules. It is stated that after conducting an X-ray, the doctors had confirmed the presence of capsules in the stomach of applicant. As per medical documents, the applicant had passed stool four times during 06-07.11.2020 and excreted 87 capsules/packets, which were handed over to the NCB officials. It is stated that these 87 capsules were examined and the same were found containing918 grams of Heroin. On 10.11.2020, the I.O. had served notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act upon the applicant for recording of his statement, and he was also formally arrested on the said date in the present case. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant had disclosed during the course of investigation that he was supposed to deliver the recovered contraband to another national of Afghanistan having mobile number ‘x’. On 11.11.2020, a raid was conducted at the house of co-accused Suleiman Agha Saihoon, from where 30 grams of Charas, 10 grams of Heroin, 5 grams of Cocaine and 25 grams of Ephedrine were recovered. Co-accused Suleiman statement was recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act and he was arrested in the present case. Their mobile phones and WhatsApp chats were also analysed during the course of investigation. After completion of investigation, the NCB had filed the present complaint before the concerned Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody for last four and a half years, even though he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel has restricted his arguments - only on the ground of delay in trial. 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 01/07/2025 at 00:22:27 He states that the trial in this case has been proceeding very slowly, and as on date, only 1 witness has been completely examined and 3 witnesses have been partly examined/cross-examined, out of total 13 witnesses. It is contended that right to speedy trial is an important facet of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and in the present case, there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in a reasonable period of time. The learned counsel has relied on several judgments of this Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend that given the period of custody undergone by the applicant and the status of trial, he be granted regular bail. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the NCB, on the other hand, opposes the present bail application and submits that this case involves illegal trafficking of contraband into India, which is a serious offence. It is submitted that the present applicant was found in possession of 918 grams of Heroin, which falls under the category of commercial quantity. It is argued that there is no undue delay in trial and there are only 13 witnesses in total to be examined by the prosecution, out of which 4 have already been examined/ partly examined. It is also pointed out that the applicant is a foreign national, and he may abscond if released on bail. It is thus prayed that the present bail application be dismissed. 5.This Court has heard arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and has perused the case file. 6.The case against the present accused, in a nutshell, is that he was apprehended at the IGI Airport, Delhi, while he coming to India from Afghanistan as he was carrying 87 capsules containing narcotic substances, which he had swallowed/ingested in his stomach. He had eventually excreted those capsules in the Hospital and the same were found containing 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 01/07/2025 at 00:22:27 a total of 918 grams of Heroin.On his disclosure, co-accused Suliaman Agha Saihoon was also apprehended, from whose house, 30 grams of Charas, 10 grams of Heroin, 05 grams of Cocaine and 25 grams of Ephedrine were recovered. 7.Concededly, the quantity of narcotic substance recovered in this case from the possession of the present applicant i.e., 918 grams of Heroin, is commercial in nature. Therefore, the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against the applicant for the purpose of grant of bail. 8.However, the primary ground on which the applicant herein has sought bail is the delay in trial. In this regard, this Court had called a report from the learned Trial Court, wherein it has been mentioned that one witness stands examined and discharged, whereas three other witnesses remain to be cross examined or partly cross-examined by the accused persons. It has also been mentioned that for the recording of evidence of remaining witnesses, a time period of 1 to 1.5 years be granted. 9.Considering the fact that only 13 witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution in this case, out of which four witnesses have either been fully examined and discharged or partly examined, thisCourt is of the view that the learned Trial Court should make an endeavour to conclude the recording of evidence in this case within a period of eight months. 10.Further, in this Court’s view, the plea of delay in trial cannot be considered and adjudicated in isolation, and the facts such as the applicant being a foreign national, who was apprehended at the airport, for indulging in cross-border illicit trafficking of drugs and narcotic substances, as he had injested 87 capsules containing 918 grams of Heroin, cannot be entirely 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 01/07/2025 at 00:22:27 ignored at this stage. The applicant also has no roots in India as he is an Afghan national and chances of him absconding or feeling from justice cannot also be ruled out. Further, the trial is at a crucial stage and testimonies of material witnesses are being recorded. 11.It is also to be noted that the present case is not one where the ratio of judgment in Supreme Legal Aid committee (Representing undertrial prisoners)v. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC 731would apply since the applicant has not yet undergone half of the minimum sentence which could be awarded to him for commission of alleged offence under the provisions of NDPS Act . 12.Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant on the ground of delay in trial. However, as directed above, the learned Trial Court shall make every endeavour to conclude the recording of evidence in this case within a period of eight months from date of receipt of this Court’s order. 13.Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. 14.Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 15.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, JMAY 23, 2025/ Click here to check corrigendum, if any