NDPS Act | Not Every Parcel Pickup Proves Drug Conspiracy | Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Caught Collecting LSD Consignment Citing Lack Of Conscious Possession
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted bail to an individual apprehended in connection with a commercial quantity of LSD recovered from a courier parcel. The Court held that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for the grant of bail stood satisfied. It noted that there was no recovery made from the direct possession of the accused, and the prosecution had not brought on record any substantive material to connect him to the broader drug distribution network.
The Court directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to specified conditions. Justice Narula took into account the contradictions in the case record, absence of digital or financial linkage with the co-accused, and the fact that the applicant had been in custody for nearly two years. It was clarified that the findings were limited to the scope of the bail proceedings and would have no bearing on the final adjudication of the matter. The accused’s case will continue to be tried before the Special Judge (NDPS), Patiala House District Court, New Delhi.
Acting on specific intelligence, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) apprehended one Gajender Singh at the DTDC Courier Office in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. He was caught attempting to book a parcel containing 15 LSD blots weighing 0.3 grams. A subsequent search of his residence yielded an additional 650 LSD blots. In his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Gajender Singh identified Shainu Hatwar as the individual directing his activities.
Shainu Hatwar was subsequently arrested and confessed to her role in the operation. She further identified Sarabjeet Singh from Jaipur as the principal supplier of the psychotropic substances. Pursuant to this disclosure, NCB conducted a search at Sarabjeet Singh’s premises in Jaipur and recovered 9,006 LSD blots, 2.232 kilograms of Ganja, and Rs. 4,65,500 in cash. Sarabjeet Singh was arrested and confirmed the version of events provided by the earlier accused. He disclosed details of four courier consignments, including one sent to Kottayam, Kerala.
The consignment sent to Kottayam was dispatched on 2 June 2023. NCB officials, upon tracing the parcel to the local DTDC office, laid a trap with the assistance of an employee, Mr. Nideesh Sankar. Mr. Sankar informed the officials that an individual had been calling persistently about the parcel. Following this, a call was placed to the inquiring number asking the person to collect the parcel.
Saneesh Soman, the applicant, arrived at the courier office to collect the parcel. He was apprehended on the spot and 100 LSD blots weighing approximately 3.5 grams were recovered. His statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded the same day, wherein he stated that he had come to collect the parcel on the instructions of his neighbour, Punan C.M. @ Robin. He also showed the officials a WhatsApp message containing the consignment details.
The applicant was arrested under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act and produced before the Magistrate at Kakkanad. A three-day transit remand was granted for production before the Special Judge (NDPS) at Patiala House. The chargesheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 22(c) and 29.
The applicant sought bail on multiple grounds: that he had no connection to the parcel’s contents, was not the consignee, and that his name, address, or phone number did not appear on the courier. He alleged that no search of his residence was conducted, no financial or digital trail linked him to other accused, and that the mobile number used to contact the courier office did not belong to him.
The NCB opposed the bail on the basis that the parcel recovered contained a commercial quantity of LSD and that the applicant was apprehended while taking possession of it. They argued that the applicant’s actions indicated conscious possession, which would invoke the presumptive provision under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.
The Court observed "The contraband in question, i.e., 100 LSD blots weighing approximately 3.5 grams, was recovered from a courier parcel which the Applicant had come to collect." It further recorded that this quantity qualifies as commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, thereby triggering the twin conditions under Section 37.
It was noted that, "Nothing was recovered from his person at the time of arrest, nor has the NCB conducted a search of his residence or unearthed any other material which would suggest involvement in the alleged drug trafficking network." The Court found that the case against the applicant rested on a narrower factual basis compared to other accused.
Addressing the issue of conscious possession, the Court stated, "The phone number cited by the prosecution... has been described in the panchnama/seizure memo... as belonging to the DTDC Kottayam office." This led the Court to conclude that ambiguity existed regarding who made the calls, and that in absence of forensic confirmation, the benefit of doubt should go to the applicant.
Further, "The Applicant was neither the consignee of the parcel nor was the package addressed to his residence." The sender and recipient were found to be pseudonymous. The Court took note of the applicant’s consistent stand that he had no connection with the named recipient or sender and acted only on a neighbour’s instruction.
In reference to the Section 67 statement, the Court recorded, "No recovery was effected pursuant to the said statement. Furthermore, there appears to be no independent or contemporaneous evidence on record... linking the Applicant to the trafficking operation."
Quoting precedent, the Court stated, "It is well-settled that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67, in the absence of substantive corroboration, does not carry probative value..."
The judgment noted the absence of "call records, financial transactions, or digital communications linking him to the co-accused or trafficking network." The Court reiterated that "the act of merely receiving a package, absent any material to suggest... knowledge of its illicit contents, prima facie, cannot by itself satisfy the legal threshold of 'possession' under the NDPS Act."
The Court concluded the first limb of Section 37(1)(b) was met as there were "reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged." As to the second condition, the Court noted the absence of criminal antecedents, satisfactory jail conduct, and the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation.
The Court directed the release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of like amount. It imposed the following conditions:
"The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever."
"The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court."
"The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed."
"The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO."
"The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times."
The Court further stated, "In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail."
It was clarified that "any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial or be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case."
Advocates Representing The Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Soujhanya Shankaran, Mr. Piyush Kumar, Ms. Anushka B., and Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms. Shelly Dixit, Mr. Sahil Khurana, and Ms. Iracy Sebastian, Advocates
Case Title: Saneesh Soman v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5860
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 591/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
