Konan Jacques Yao vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 25.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 27.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 28.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025
KONAN JACQUES YAO .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohan Gupta and Mr.
Anup Kr. Gupta, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE
INTELLIGENCE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr.
Standing Counsel and Mr.
Gagan Vaswani, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking
grant of regular bail in case bearing no. DRI/DZU/34/ENQ/13/2023,
registered at Police Station DRI, DZU, Delhi, for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereafter ‘NDPS Act’ ].
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that acting upon
specific intelligence, a team of officers of the Directorate of Revenue
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 1 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26


Intelligence (DRI) intercepted three passengers, namely, Cynthia
Adaobi Chukwuka (a passport holder of Nigeria), Donnatus
Chukwuka (a passport holder of Nigeria), and the present applicant,
Konan Jacques Yao (a passport holder of Ivory Coast), who had
arrived at Terminal-3 of IGI Airport, New Delhi from Addis Ababa
on 18.07.2023 at about 01:00 hrs. The said passengers were
intercepted while attempting to cross the green channel, as the DRI
officers had prior information that they were carrying narcotic
substances, either concealed in their baggage or within their bodies.
Notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served upon them.
Upon suspicion of internal concealment of narcotic substances, the
accused persons were produced before the concerned Court on
18.07.2023 itself, and permission was sought for their medical
examination. The learned Trial Court allowed the said request.
Thereafter, all three accused persons were taken to Ram Manohar
Lohia Hospital, where they were examined at the Trauma Centre and
subsequently referred to the Department of Radiology. The X-ray
examination conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and
DRI officers revealed the presence of oval-shaped foreign objects
inside the bodies of all three accused persons. They were thereafter
admitted to the hospital for observation. During the course of their
admission, accused Donnatus Chukwuka excreted multiple capsules
containing a white/off-white substance. In total, 84 capsules were
recovered from him. From the present applicant, Konan Jacques Yao,
07 such capsules were recovered. No capsules were physically
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 2 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26


recovered from Cynthia; however, as per the medical reports,
multiple foreign objects were detected in her abdomen, which she
allegedly disposed of by flushing them in the hospital toilet. One of
the recovered capsules was opened and tested using the NDPS Field
Testing Kit, which indicated the presence of cocaine/methaqualone.
All recovered capsules were duly seized, sealed, and documented in
accordance with law. It is further the case of the prosecution that
during their stay at the hospital, the present applicant exhibited non-
cooperative behaviour and resisted supervision by DRI officials. All
proceedings were duly recorded in panchnamas prepared at the spot.
Upon discharge from the hospital, the medical documents of all
accused persons, including discharge summaries and radiological
reports, corroborated the presence of foreign bodies in their systems.
Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleges that all three accused persons
were acting in concert and were part of a larger criminal conspiracy
involving the smuggling of narcotic substances into India. It is stated
that 1848 grams of cocaine was recovered from co-accused Donnatus
Chukwuka and 154 grams from the present applicant, totalling 2002
grams of cocaine, which falls within the category of commercial
quantity under the NDPS Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Konan
Jacques Yao, submits that no incriminating material was recovered
from the personal baggage of the applicant. It is argued that there has
been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 3 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26


Act. In this regard, it is contended that despite prior intelligence, the
Investigating Officer, Nishi Garg, was not authorised under Section
41(2) of the NDPS Act to conduct the search, seizure, and arrest of
the applicant, and that the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act have also not been complied with. It is further contended that
Section 43 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the present case, as
the search of the accused persons was conducted at the Customs
Preventive Room at IGI Airport, which is a restricted area and not
accessible to the general public, and therefore cannot be treated as a
“public place” within the meaning of Section 43 of the NDPS Act.
The learned counsel further submits that though an order was
obtained from the learned Magistrate under Section 103 of the
Customs Act for scanning and screening of the accused persons, the
X-ray report has not been produced for the purposes of Section
103(6) of the Customs Act. It is also contended that no proper
custody order qua the accused persons was obtained, which amounts
to a violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 103 of the
Customs Act, rendering the detention of the accused illegal and
violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It is
further argued that no incriminating material was recovered from the
mobile phone of the present applicant to establish any nexus with the
co-accused persons. The learned counsel also submits that co-accused
Cynthia has already been granted regular bail, and therefore, on the
ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged
on bail. It is additionally contended that no audio or videography of
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 4 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26


the search and seizure proceedings was conducted by the DRI
officials, nor were any efforts made to procure CCTV footage,
despite the alleged recovery having taken place at the highly secured
premises of IGI Airport.
4. On the other hand, the learned SPP appearing for
DRI/respondent opposes the present bail application and submits that
the recovery in the present case was effected from the bodies of the
accused persons, who were apprehended at the airport, which is a
public place. It is, therefore, argued that Section 43 of the NDPS Act
is applicable and not Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that
the accused had concealed capsules containing cocaine within his
body, which were subsequently excreted and seized in accordance
with law. The learned SPP submits that the quantity of narcotic
substance from the present applicant falls within the category of
commercial quantity, and thus, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act are attracted. It is further submitted that during the course of
medical observation, 84 oval-shaped capsules were recovered from
co-accused Donnatus Chukwuka and 07 oval-shaped capsules were
recovered from the present applicant, Konan Jacques Yao, the details
of which are reflected in the table below:

BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 5 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
applicant as well as the respondent/DRI, and has perused the material
available on record.
6. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that acting upon
specific intelligence, the DRI officials had intercepted the accused
persons, including the present applicant, at IGI Airport upon their
arrival from Addis Ababa, and upon medical examination, multiple
capsules containing narcotic substance, i.e., cocaine, were found
concealed within their bodies. The said capsules were subsequently
excreted and recovered, and the total quantity of contraband
attributed to the present applicant falls within the category of
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 6 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26


commercial quantity i.e. 154 grams of cocaine, while total recovery
being 2002 grams of cocaine.
7. Having examined the material placed on record, this Court
finds no merit in the contention of the applicant regarding non-
compliance of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. The learned
Trial Court has rightly held that the interception of the accused
persons took place at IGI Airport, which qualifies as a “public place”
within the meaning of the NDPS Act. In this regard, reliance was
placed by the learned Trial Court on decision of this Court in Santini
Simone v. Department of Customs: 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2128 ,
wherein this Court, after referring to several judicial precedents, held
that areas of the airport such as customs counters, immigration areas,
and allied zones would fall within the ambit of a public place, and
thus, attracting the applicability of Section 43 of the NDPS Act. It is
further settled that unlike Section 42, Section 43 of the NDPS Act
does not mandate prior recording of information or reasons of belief.
In the present case, since the accused persons were intercepted at the
airport itself, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would
govern the field, and therefore, the argument regarding non-
compliance of Sections 41 and 42 does not prima facie persuade this
Court at this stage. Moreover, the specific argument of the learned
counsel for the applicant that search of accused persons was
conducted in a restricted area of the customs department is also not
acceptable, as this Court in Santini Simone (supra) also specifically
observed that “ the contention that certain areas in the airport cannot
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 7 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26


be described as a public place merely because the entry is restricted,
was expressly rejected ” by Division Bench of this Court in Utpal
Mishra Air Customs Officer, I.G.I. v. Mr. Nicelai Christensen:
1997 SCC OnLine Del 655 .
8. Insofar as the contention regarding alleged non-compliance of
Section 103 of the Customs Act is concerned, the same also raises
disputed questions of fact, which would require appreciation of
evidence and are thus matters for trial. Prima facie , the case of the
prosecution is supported by the recoveries effected, the medical
examination reports, including X-ray findings indicating presence of
foreign bodies, and the subsequent recovery of capsules containing
narcotic substance. The fact that the quantity recovered from the
present applicant falls within the category of commercial quantity
further strengthens the prosecution case at this stage.
9. As regards the contention of parity, this Court finds that the
same is misconceived. Admittedly, no narcotic substance could be
recovered from co-accused Cynthia, whereas 07 capsules containing
cocaine, weighing 154 grams, have been recovered from the present
applicant. The said quantity falls within the category of commercial
quantity, and thus, attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
10. Further, insofar as the contention regarding delay is concerned,
the Trial Court Record was summoned and perused. The same
reveals that the delay in the proceedings cannot be attributed solely to
the prosecution, as adjournments were sought on several occasions by
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 8 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26


one or the other accused, including for the purposes of addressing
arguments on charge and filing written submissions. At the same
time, this Court cannot overlook that the learned Trial Court had, on
multiple occasions, adjourned the matter even when the parties were
ready to advance arguments on charge, and there was no requirement
for the physical presence of the accused for the said purpose. The
arguments on charge, in fact, came to be heard over an extended
period from July 2024 to December 2025. Such an approach,
particularly in cases where the accused are in judicial custody, ought
to have been avoided.
11. Be that as it may, at this stage, when the prosecution witnesses
are yet to be examined, and considering the recovery effected from
the present applicant as well as the manner in which the contraband
was allegedly smuggled into India, this Court is of the view that no
ground for grant of regular bail is made out.
12. In view thereof, the present bail application stands dismissed.
13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MARCH 27, 2026/vc
TD
BAIL APPLN. 3917/2025 Page 9 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:28.03.2026
17:08:26