Ignorance Of Nature Or Contents Of Contraband Cannot Be Taken As A Defence In NDPS Cases: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that ignorance of the nature or contents of the contraband cannot be taken as a defence in criminal cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The Bench of Justice Ajay Digpaul observed, “Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, it stands established that a commercial quantity of heroin was recovered. The role of the petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Jha, has come forth inasmuch as he was to receive the said contraband, and in his disclosure, he has categorically stated that the same was intended to be handed over to the petitioner, Ekoh Collins Chidubem. These circumstances, taken together prima facie indicate the modus operandi adopted in the present transaction. Ignorance of the nature or contents of the contraband cannot be taken as a defence and shall not enure to the benefit of the accused.”

Advocate Aditya Aggarwal represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Arun Khatri represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

A Bail Application was filed by the Accused Persons, who were accused under Sections 8/21/23/29 of the NDPS Act. It was the case of the Prosecution that they were acting upon secret information and enquired about a parcel, which was being sent to one of the Accused Persons. The parcel contained 750 gms of heroin.

While the Accused Person admitted the knowledge of the parcel, but contended that he used to hand over the parcel to a Nigerian national (second accused), in Delhi in lieu of monetary consideration. The passport of the Nigerian National was also forged.

It was contended that the First Accused role was limited to transportation of the parcel and he was not involved in packing, sending, or receiving the parcel. Further, the money transaction of Rs. 7,400/- between the accused persons was nominal and does not indicate any benefit from dealing in contraband.

The Accused Persons submitted that the statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS should not preclude the grant of bail to the petitioners, having regard to the absence of recovery from them, the nominal consideration involved, their lack of knowledge of the contraband, and the prolonged period of custodial detention.

Court’s Observation

The High Court opined that the contentions of the Accused Persons that they were mere transporters, that the monetary consideration involved was nominal, or that they had no active role in the handling or transportation of the consignment, are all issues that fall squarely for determination at the trial stage.

The High Court noted that the Call Detail Records demonstrate that, around the time of the incident, the Accused Persons were in regular communication with one another as well as with the consignee of the parcel from which the contraband was recovered.

While taking into consideration the duration of incarceration already undergone by the Accused Persons, the Bench said that the Court must balance personal liberty against the need to prevent further risk to public safety and ensure the administration of justice.

“In the considered view of this Court, the incarceration already undergone by the petitioners does not, at this stage, constitute a sufficient ground to enlarge them on bail, particularly when the trial has commenced and the matter is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence”, the High Court observed.

Pertinently, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was also attracted. The Court underscored that once the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are invoked, the Court can grant bail only upon satisfaction of the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37(1)(b) NDPS, in addition to the usual criteria for grant of bail. “Specifically, the Court must be satisfied that (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence; and (ii)the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”, the Bench added.

Further, while denying bail to the accused persons, the Court held that ignorance of the nature or contents of the contraband cannot be taken as a defence and shall not enure to the benefit of the accused.

Accordingly, the bail was denied.

Cause Title: Ekoh Collins Chidubem V. Narcotics Control Bureau (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8740)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Aditya Aggarwal, Kajol Garg and Naveen Panwar

Respondent: Advocates Arun Khatri, Shelly Dixit and Anisha Maan

Click here to read/download Judgment