Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 10.03.2026
Judgment delivered on: 17.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025
MARIA NUEMIA ALBERTINA .....Petitioner
versus
CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohan Gupta with Mr. Anoop Kumar
Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Chadha, Sr. Standing Counsel for
Customs with Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
1
1. Applicant seeks regular bail in case registered against her for
2
commission of offences under Sections 8, 21, 23 and 28 of NDPS Act .
2. As per prosecution‟s case, on the basis of secret information, a team
was mounted at the exit gate of Flight No. 6E1308 at Terminal-3 of Indira
Gandhi International Airport . The applicant, a foreign national, landed on
02.07.2024 and was intercepted by the Customs officials on suspicion of
carrying narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances. Initially, on scanning of
her baggage through X-Ray machine and when she was asked to pass
through DFMD, nothing was recovered. However, on suspicion basis, she
was taken to „Customs Prevention Room‟ at IGI Airport itself. She was
asked about the language in which she could communicate comfortably.
1
Complaint case No. VIII(AP)(10)P&I/4995-A/ARRIVAL/2024, registered at P.S.
Customs, IGI Airport, Delhi
2
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 1 of 12
She, reportedly, stated that she understood „ Portuguese‟ and „ French‟ and
understood little English language.
3. She was served with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and
Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 .
4. Interestingly, help of artificial intelligence (AI) tool i.e. Google
Translator was taken by Customs to make her understand the proceedings.
5. During her personal search conducted at the spot, eight capsules were
recovered, which she had concealed in her undergarments. She further
admitted and informed Customs Officials that she had also ingested some
pellets/ capsules containing narcotic drugs/ Psychotropic substance which
were concealed inside her body and expressed her willingness and consent
to undergo proper medical procedure for its extraction from her body.
6. A notice under Section 103 of Customs Act, 1962 was served and
upon her consent, she was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital on 02.07.2024
for medical examination where she was kept under preventive observation
and later egested 34 more capsules.
7. There was, thus, total recovery of 42 capsules and upon testing, the
content in such capsules was found to be Cocaine . The total recovered
substance weighed approximately 503 grams, which is commercial quantity
under NDPS Act.
8. The applicant was, eventually, discharged from Safdarjung Hospital
on 06.07.2024. Her statement under Section 67 NDPS Act was recorded on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 2 of 12
07.07.2024 and she was, thereafter, formally arrested same day and was
produced before court for remand purpose.
9. A complaint was filed in the Court on 25.12.2024.
10. Charges were framed on 21.02.2025 and trial is underway.
11. The bail is being sought for multiple reasons. Firstly , the applicant
had been apprehended on 02.07.2024 and thereafter remained in the
custody of the respondents-Customs without being produced before the
Magistrate within twenty-four hours of such detention. Learned counsel for
the applicant submits that once she had already been intercepted and
recovery had been made at the Airport itself, she ought to have been
produced before the Magistrate, immediately. On the contrary, she was
taken to Safdarjung Hospital and was kept under detention there in illegal
and unlawful manner. It is argued that such detention is in violation of
3
Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 58 of BNSS ,
2023 , as she was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within twenty-
four hours and no custody remand or special order under Section 187 BNSS
was obtained. It is also contended that the period of twenty-four hours is
required to be reckoned from the time when the liberty of the accused stood
curtailed and not from the time when the arrest was formally shown on
07.07.2024. Secondly and more importantly, she was not made aware about
her legal rights in proper manner. It is argued that the use of „artificial tool‟
was absolutely unwarranted and such superfluous compliance has rendered
the entire documentation non-est , particularly when even the alleged
3
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 3 of 12
translated copies do not depict her answers at all. Learned counsel for the
applicant places reliance upon Habiob Bedru Omer v. Customs , 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 4263, Kitoko Ngiembo Alain Vs Customs 2026: DHC: 1338
and Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma 2025 INSC 141. The
trial is underway and out of the cited 26 prosecution witnesses, only one
witness has entered into the witness box so far, and therefore, apparently, as
per learned counsel for applicant, there is no likelihood of trial concluding
in near future, which makes her entitled to be released on bail.
12. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Customs, while opposing the
bail plea of the applicant, submits that statutory procedures and mandatory
safeguards have been duly followed and the applicant was served with
prescribed notices under Section 50 NDPS Act and Sections 102 and 103 of
Customs Act and that the willingness of applicant was duly recorded before
proceeding further in the matter. It is submitted that the recovery was
transparent and independent panch witnesses were associated at every
material stage and moreover, such aspects regarding alleged infraction or
violation are subject matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated herein, at the
stage of seeking bail. He contends that applicant is a foreign national with
no permanent roots in India and is a flight risk, and therefore, the Court
must not employ liberal approach in cases involving seizure of contraband
of commercial quantity. It is contended that liberal approach in NDPS
matters involving commercial quantity is not permissible and moreover,
there was due compliance of all the relevant provisions and it was only
when the applicant had, after comprehending all the relevant notices
including notice under Section 103 of Customs Act, 1962 , volunteered her
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 4 of 12
admission in the hospital, she was taken to the hospital, and thereafter,
when she was discharged, she was immediately produced before the learned
Court for remand purpose. Reliance has been placed upon Achint Navinbhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat , (2002) 10 SCC 529; Supdt., Narcotics Control
Bureau, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy , (2000) 9 SCC 549; State of M.P. v.
Kajad , (2001) 7 SCC 673; State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh , (1994) 3 SCC
299; State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Sheikh & Ors., (2003) 8
SCC 50; State through Secretary, Central Narcotic Department, Lucknow
v. Syed Amir Hussain , (2002) 10 SCC 88; Babu alias Tazmul Hossain v.
State of Orissa , 2001 AIR SCW 682 (SC); Union of India v. Aharwa Deen ,
200 VI AD (SC) 155; Union of India v. Ram Samujh , (1999) 9 SCC 429;
Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Ors., 1995 SCC (Crl.) 665 (SC); Heera
Lal v. State , 2003 (2) CC Cases (DHC) 170; Md. Ahshan v. The State (NCT
of Delhi) , 2004 (1) JCC 13; Mohd. Ashmahil @ Mohd. Ismail @ Iqbal Bhai
v. NCB-Crl . In M(M) No.354/2002 (DoD 15.04.2002); Sanjeev Kumar v.
NCB In Crl.Misc.(M) No.3962/2002 (DoD 17.02.2003); Sakib @
Sakibchana S/O Faridmiya Shaikh v. State of Gujarat 2025
Supreme(Online)(GUJ)2523. 20
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and
perused the material and precedents cited at the Bar.
14. Indubitably, though the contentions regarding alleged violations
would be appropriately answered during the trial, at the same time, there is
no rigid proscription in evaluating said aspects on surface level and in case,
the Court comes across any serious violation going to the root of the matter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 5 of 12
and affecting personal life and liberty, the same can be considered at the
time of consideration of bail plea also.
15. Of course, the act of ingesting contraband may prima facie imply
complicity but it also needs to be seen whether procedure applicable for
goods liable to confiscation secreted inside body have been followed in
letter and spirit or not.
16. As per Section 103 Customs Act , where proper officer has reason to
believe that any such person has any goods liable to confiscation secreted
inside his body, he may detain such person and produce him without
unnecessary delay before the nearest Magistrate. Thereafter, the magistrate,
before whom any such person is brought, if he sees no reasonable ground
for believing that such person has any such goods secreted inside his body,
forthwith discharge such person. However, where any such Magistrate has
reasonable ground for believing that such person has any such goods
secreted inside his body and the Magistrate is satisfied that for the purpose
of discovering such goods it is necessary to have the body of such person
screened or X-rayed, he may make an order to that effect.
17. Undeniably, as per Section 103(8) Customs Act , nothing in said
section shall apply to any person who admits that goods liable to
confiscation are secreted inside his body, and who voluntarily submits
himself for suitable action being taken for bringing out such goods.
18. Herein, I, however, do not come across any clear hint of specific
willingness or admission, from the bare contents of notice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 6 of 12
19. First of all, a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was served upon the
applicant. A copy of notice served upon the applicant in English is attached
with the petition. As per the abovesaid notice, the applicant was apprised
about her legal rights and was told that if she so desired, her personal search
and search for the baggage could be conducted before “a Magistrate or
Gazetted Officer or by any lady Officer of Customs ”.
20. As per contents appearing in notice in English language, she gave her
no objection in getting herself searched before any „ lady custom officer ‟.
Interestingly, the translated copy, generated through AI tool, does not
contain her response or reply and it merely contains her signatures as well
as signatures of one Vikas Kumar. Such Vikas Kumar is stated to be a
person who, allegedly, explained the contents of the notice to her in her
vernacular language but according to learned Counsel for applicant, name
of this material person does not even figure in list of witnesses.
21. Fact, however, remains that the translation got done through AI tool
is incomplete and does not contain the reply. Thus, it is not very clear and
discernable whether she was, actually, duly apprised about her legal rights
in desired manner or not and whether the search was as per her response.
Moreover, the legal provision contained under Section 50 NDPS Act is
amply clear and there could not have been any addition or subtraction to
such provision and, therefore, it was unlawful on part of Customs to have
apprised her that she could even be searched by any lady officer of
Customs. As per mandate of law, the search could have been only before a
Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 7 of 12
22. Similar is the fate with respect to notice under Section 102 of
Customs Act . The translated copy generated through AI tool does not
contain the reply part. Mere signatures of one Vikas Kumar on translated
copy does not seem to serve the real purpose.
23. An identical situation had arisen before this Court in Kitoko Ngiembo
Alain (supra) in which also, a foreign national had landed in India and on
the basis of intelligence input when the said accused was searched, 19
numbers of capsules/pellets were extracted. Such extraction took place on
20.02.2022 and thereafter, on the basis of reply given by the accused
therein to notice under Section 103 Customs Act, 1962, he was taken to
RML Hospital where he eased out 54 more capsules. Eventually, after his
discharge on 24.02.2022, he was produced before the Court on 25.02.2022.
While granting bail to said accused, the following observations were made
by this Court:-
“ 20. Learned counsel for the applicant strongly relies upon Habiob Bedru
Omer v. Customs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4263. In said recent case, almost of
similar nature, though no recovery took place at the Airport itself, the
concerned accused when taken to Safdarjung Hospital, 75 capsules
containing contraband were recovered from him. Further requisite action was
taken after his discharge from Safdarjung Hospital and the arrest was also
„post-discharge‟ and when the abovesaid aspects were brought to knowledge
of the Court, while granting bail, learned Coordinate Bench observed as
under:-
27. In the present case, admittedly, the documents of the respondent
shows that there was specific intelligence/prior information with regard
to the arrival of the present applicant with the contraband. It is,
however, the case of the respondent in the complaint filed before the
learned Special Court that the applicant was intercepted on the basis of
suspicion/profiling. The sequence of events and record would reflect
that from the very interception, the respondent had reasons to believe
that the applicant was carrying the contraband recovered. In these
circumstances, it was incumbent upon the concerned Officer to comply
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 8 of 12
with the provisions of the NDPS Act. Admittedly, there has been no such
compliance and the respondent proceeded to detain the applicant
without complying with the aforesaid procedure. The respondent was
bound to comply with the aforesaid provisions from the time the
applicant was intercepted at the IGI Airport. In any case, when the first
set of capsules were seized by panchnama dated 21.05.2023, the
respondent was bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the
NDPS Act. It is pertinent to note that the report under Section 57 of the
NDPS Act was sent only on 26.05.2023.
28. The applicant was in the continuous custody of the respondent from
21.05.2023 till 26.05.2023 without any authorisation. “Handing Over”
and “Taking Over” memos annexed with the complaint leaves no
manner of doubt that the custody of the applicant was being transferred
from one Officer to the other on the basis of the rotational duties. Thus,
in the opinion of this Court, such custody without any authority and
without producing him before the concerned Magistrate or Special
Court within 24 hours in accordance with law is completely illegal.
Even if the applicant was under medication for the procedure being
carried out, the same cannot be a ground to keep him in custody.
Magistrates exercising power of remand or otherwise in respect of
persons in hospital is not unheard of and well recognised procedure in
law.
29. Thus, the respondent without producing the applicant within 24
hours of his detention continued to keep him in Safdarjung Hospital till
his final arrest on 26.05.2023. In view of the above, this Court holds
that the applicant was kept in illegal custody by the respondent from
21.05.2023 to 25.05.2023. His arrest on 26.05.2023 stands vitiated. In
terms of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Subhash Sharma
(supra) , rights of the applicant guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of
the Constitution of India have been violated, and therefore, he has to be
released on bail despite the restrictions provided under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. The applicant has been in judicial custody since the date of
his formal arrest, i.e., 26.05.2023, and has undergone incarceration for
more than 2 years as of today.”
21. Herein, admittedly, 19 capsules had been recovered immediately after the
interception, when the applicant was taken to the toilet of IGI Airport itself.
The contraband contained in 19 capsules, suspected to be cocaine, was
seized, and thus offence stood revealed, then and there. In such a situation,
the applicant should have been arrested immediately and produced before the
Court, even if further recovery was to be affected. Thereafter, Customs, as per
order of the Court, could have taken him to hospital for further easing out of
capsules. In case, delay in hospitalization had any potential of resulting in
health-hazard for the applicant, remand could have taken at the hospital also,
by making appropriate request to the Court to come to the hospital for said
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 9 of 12
purpose. Thus, applicant was, apparently, detained without any authorization,
particularly when part-recovery had already taken place at Airport and
offence stood revealed. Respondent cannot be absolved merely on the pretext
that formal arrest was later. Thus, palpably, the applicant remained in illegal
custody of Customs from the date of interception till 25.02.2022.”
24. It was thus observed that once the contraband had been recovered at
the Airport itself, the accused should have been arrested immediately and
should have been produced before the Court even if further recovery was to
be effected and resultantly, it was held that the applicant remained in illegal
custody of Customs from the date of interception till he was produced
before the Court.
25. Situation is almost similar here, too. Admittedly, 8 capsules,
containing cocaine, had been recovered at the Airport itself. In such a
situation, the applicant should have been arrested immediately and
produced before the Court, even if further recovery was to be affected. As
noted already, thereafter, Customs, as per order of the Court, could have
taken her to hospital for further easing out of capsules. In case, of any
health hazard, remand could have taken at the hospital also, by making
appropriate request to the Court to come to the hospital for said purpose.
Thus, the applicant remained in illegal custody of Customs from the date of
interception at the Airport i.e. 02.07.2024.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent-Customs has also relied upon
Lydia Kabukazi Aloyo v. Customs (in BAIL APPLN.1429/2025)
2025:DHC:11877. However, the facts in abovesaid judgment are clearly
distinguishable from the present one, as in that case, admittedly, no
contraband was recovered at the Airport.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 10 of 12
27. As per Nominal Roll of the applicant, she is in custody since the date
of her arrest i.e. 07.07.2024 and has no previous involvement in any other
case. There is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future. When it
comes to somebody‟s life and liberty, Article 21 of the Constitution of India
must override and prevail over the statutory embargo created under Section
37 of NDPS Act . Reference be made to Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha :
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1009 , Naeem Ahmed Alias Naim Ahmad vs. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 220, Mohd. Muslim v. State
(NCT of Delhi) , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, Man Mandal & Anr. vs. The
State of West Bengal , 2023 SCC OnLine SC, Dheerai Kumar Shukla v.
State of U.P. , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, Badsha Sk. V. State of W.B.
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1867, Zakir Hussain v. State (Govt. Of NCT of
Delhi) 2025 SCC OnLine Del 253, and Vinay Sharma v. State (NCT of
Delhi) : 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5137.
28. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the applicant is, hereby,
directed to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in a sum of
Rs. 25,000/- with one „ local ‟ surety of like amount, subject to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate with the
following conditions:-
(i) The address, where the applicant would be residing after her
release, shall be revealed in advance and the learned Trial Court
will be at liberty to get the same verified, before accepting the
bonds.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 11 of 12
(ii) The applicant shall report to the concerned IO, first Sunday of
every month at 10:00 AM, till the trial is concluded.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the National Capital Region of
Delhi, without prior permission of learned Trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall not try to contact and influence any witness,
directly or indirectly.
(v) She shall provide one Mobile Number to the concerned I.O and
shall ensure that her such Mobile Number remains active and
operational, till the disposal of the case by the learned Trial Court.
29. Any violation of the above conditions shall invite cancellation of
bail.
30. Needless to state, nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to final
expression on the merits of the case.
31. The application stands allowed and disposed of along with all
pending application(s), if any.
32. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court and also to the
Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 17, 2026
sw/sa
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2026
17:53:26
BAIL APPLN. 4689/2025 Page 12 of 12