Merely Receiving Package Sans Any Material To Suggest That Accused Was Aware Of Its Illicit Content Can’t Satisfy Legal Threshold Of 'Possession' Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Petitioner seeking bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A & 29 of the NDPS Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula noted, “The Applicant has consistently maintained that he had no knowledge of the contents of the parcel and had collected the same solely at the request of his neighbour, Punan C.M. @Robin, who had provided him the consignment details via WhatsApp. While the true extent of his knowledge and involvement will undoubtedly be subject to evidence at trial, at this stage, the prosecution has not produced any direct or circumstantial material to demonstrate that the Applicant knew or ought to have known about the nature of the contents. Thus, the act of merely receiving a package, absent any material to suggest that the Applicant was aware of its illicit contents, prima facie, cannot by itself satisfy the legal threshold of “possession” under the NDPS Act.”

Advocate Soujhanya Shankaran represented the Appellant while SSC Arun Khatri represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Narcotics Control Bureau apprehended one Gajender Singh, aged approximately 23–24 years, at the DTDC Courier Office, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, while he was attempting to book a parcel. In his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Gajender confessed to his role in the attempted shipment. During the search of one Sarabjeet Singh 9,006 LSD blots, 2.232 kilograms of Ganja, and a cash amount of ₹4,65,500 was seized. He further revealed the details of four separate consignments, three of which contained 100 LSD blots

Pursuant to a trap laid by the NCB, the Applicant, Saneesh Soman, arrived at the DTDC courier office in Kottayam to collect a parcel of one of the consignments. Upon examination, the parcel in question was found to contain 100 LSD paper blots, collectively weighing approximately 3.5 grams.The Applicant was formally arrested for offences under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Applicant was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who granted a three-day transit remand to enable his production before the Special Judge (NDPS) at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, where the complaint proceedings are pending.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the Applicant was apprehended while seeking delivery of a parcel which, as per NCB’s intelligence input, contained psychotropic substances. The recovery of contraband was linked to the parcel he came to collect. It was further noticed that nothing was recovered from his person at the time of arrest, nor had the NCB conducted a search of his residence or unearthed any other material which would suggest involvement in the alleged drug trafficking network. However, in contrast, the other co-accused were arrested pursuant to specific recoveries from their residences or based on substantive links with multiple consignments.

The Bench also took note of the absence of forensic corroboration tying the Applicant to the number that initiated the calls to the DTDC. “...this Court is of the view that the benefit of doubt must enure to the Applicant at this stage”, the Bench said. The facts also suggested that a pseudonymous identity may have been employed for the consignor.

The Applicant also emphasized that his involvement was limited to collecting the parcel at the behest of his neighbor and he had no knowledge of its contents. The Bench observed, “Furthermore, there appears to be no independent or contemporaneous evidence on record, such as CDRs, text messages, financial transactions, or any other corroborative material, linking the Applicant to the trafficking operation or demonstrating his prior knowledge of the contents of the parcel. It is well-settled that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67, in the absence of substantive corroboration, does not carry probative value and cannot be the sole basis for sustaining the accusation, particularly in light of constitutional safeguards under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court was of the view that the benefit of doubt ought to enure to the Applicant at this stage. Accordingly, for the limited purpose of bail, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged. Finding no material to conclude that the Applicant would misuse the liberty of bail, if granted, the Bench was inclined to accept the Applicant’s prayer for bail.

“Therefore, the Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Metropolitan…”, the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: Saneesh Soman v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5860)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Soujhanya Shankaran, Piyush Kumar, Anushka B., Vipin Kumar

Respondent: SSC Arun Khatri, Advocates Shelly Dixit, Sahil Khurana, Iracy Sebastian

Click here to read/download Order