Sanchayita Lahkar

The Calcutta High Court, Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, declined to grant bail to a petitioner in a case involving commercial quantity narcotics allegedly linked to an international drug trafficking racket. The court underscored the presence of sufficient prima facie material beyond the petitioner’s confessional statement to warrant trial, while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings in view of the petitioner’s prolonged custody.

The case stems from the seizure of a parcel containing 2.170 kg of amphetamine discovered by Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officials on April 4, 2024, at the Foreign Post Office in Kolkata. The parcel, addressed to the petitioner, also bore the petitioner’s mobile number and included kitchen appliances. The NCB seized the contents in the petitioner’s absence and later arrested her on May 7, 2024. The petitioner denied knowledge of the sender, claiming no communication with the foreign consignor from the Netherlands.

Also Read: Home Buyer Cannot Be Compelled to Take Possession After Long Delay: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court’s Order, Restores NCDRC’s Refund

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel contended that the petitioner had no knowledge of the contraband or the parcel's origins. It was submitted that the seizure was executed without her presence, and that no incriminating materials were recovered during a search of her residence at Lunglei, Mizoram. The petitioner reportedly did not provide KYC details nor used email or mobile communication to track the parcel. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was inadmissible, citing the Supreme Court decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.

Additional procedural shortcomings cited by the petitioner included the absence of proper certification of inventory under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, failure to collect samples or photographs in the presence of a Magistrate, and a lack of monetary or digital evidence linking her to the contraband. Although Call Detail Records (CDRs) were included in the charge sheet, the required HASH value certification under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, was reportedly absent. Furthermore, the forensic report from CFSL Hyderabad pertaining to the petitioner’s mobile device was not submitted with the charge sheet.

In response, counsel representing the NCB argued that the agency acted on prior secret information, complying with all procedural requirements before opening the parcel. The contents included amphetamine along with kitchen appliances. The entire process was videographed. The NCB contended that investigation revealed the petitioner’s links to an international drug trafficking network monitored by co-accused based in the Netherlands and Kenya. It was submitted that deleted images of the parcel were recovered from the petitioner’s mobile phone, and that her mobile number was explicitly linked to the seized parcel. The NCB maintained that these facts demonstrate conscious possession and that the petitioner’s conduct indicates awareness of the parcel’s illicit contents.

The agency further submitted that certain mobile numbers recharged by the petitioner were traced to other accused persons, including one Nigerian national. The arrest was also delayed due to the international angle of the investigation. Citing Narcotics Control Bureau v. Md. Kashif 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848, the NCB asserted that issues concerning Section 52A compliance and procedural irregularities could be addressed during trial and should not form the basis for bail.

The Division Bench noted the significance of the petitioner’s name and phone number being linked to the parcel, stating that "the parcel contained the name of the present petitioner. The said parcel also contained the phone number of the petitioner." The court pointed to the presence of deleted images of the parcel on the petitioner’s mobile device, remarking, "If the said images were sent innocuously to the mobile phone of the petitioner why were such images deleted from her mobile phone."

The court recorded that even if the confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was excluded from consideration in line with the judgment in Tofan Singh, there existed "sufficient incriminating materials" necessitating trial. It observed, "Even, if we do not consider such statements of the petitioner recorded at the instance of NCB personnel, we find that there are sufficient incriminating materials which prompt us to hold that the petitioner is to answer certain queries to rebut or discharge the reverse presumption."

The Bench took note of the petitioner’s asserted lack of connection with the parcel’s foreign sender but stated, "All these facts prima facie show that she was conscious that one parcel was coming from outside India, and, therefore, she is under an obligation to discharge the onus at the time of trial that she was not aware of the contents of such parcel."

On procedural issues raised by the petitioner, including the lack of HASH value certification and absence of the CFSL forensic report, the court cited the Md. Kashif judgement, reiterating, "Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail." It further recorded, "Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible."

In addressing the argument regarding prolonged custody, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s time in judicial custody but held that it could not outweigh the materials justifying her continued detention.

Also Read: "No Obligation to Appoint 30% Non-Medical Faculty": J&K High Court Sets Aside Single Bench Order, Holds Respondent "Never Acquired Any Right to be Selected"

The court dismissed the petitioner’s bail application, stating unequivocally, "We are not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner at this stage." However, the Bench directed expeditious trial proceedings, observing, "The petitioner is in custody for quite some time, and hence we direct the Learned Trial Court to expedite the proceedings of the case against the petitioner by splitting up the record after taking steps against the absconding accused in accordance with law."

The petition CRM (NDPS) 141 of 2025 was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. The court also directed those copies of the judgment be communicated to the trial court.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhaskar Dev Konwar, Senior Advocate Mr. Japneet Singh, Advocate Mr. Sourjya Das, Advocate Ms. Poulami Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Marry Zomuanpuii, Advocate Mr. Sounak Sen, Advocate

For the Narcotics Control Bureau / Union of India: Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Sourav Sengupta, Advocate

Case Title: Ms. Ralte @ R. Lalroluahpuii Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, Kolkata Zonal Unit

Case Number: CRM (NDPS) 141 of 2025

Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

[Read/Download order]