John Seruwu vs Customs

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 29 October, 2026
nd
Pronounced on: 2 November, 2026
nd
Uploaded on: 2 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010383242026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026
JOHN SERUWU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Meghan and Mr. Mukul Gupta,
Advocates.
versus
CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vishal Chadha, SSC with Mr.
Chandan Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. The Applicant, a Ugandan national, seeks regular bail in SC No.
786/2022, arising out of proceedings registered under Customs File No.
VIII(AP)10/P&I/3406-D/Arrival/2022, in which he is facing trial for the
offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”].
2. According to the prosecution, the Applicant arrived at IGI Airport,
th
New Delhi, from Addis Ababa on 5 April, 2022. Upon interception by
Customs officials, he allegedly disclosed that he had ingested capsules
containing narcotic substances. Six capsules were recovered at the airport,
following which he was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where
another 79 capsules were recovered. The substance recovered from the 85
capsules was found to be cocaine weighing approximately 1,088 grams,
constituting commercial quantity. The Applicant was formally arrested on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 1 of 9

th th
10 April, 2022. The prosecution complaint was filed on 6 October, 2022,
th
and charges were framed on 17 March, 2023.
3. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has remained in
th
custody since 10 April, 2022, although the trial is nowhere near
completion. It is urged that his continued detention, without any realistic
prospect of an early conclusion of the trial, violates Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Applicant also questions the legality of his detention
th th
between 5 and 10 April, 2022, particularly when six capsules had already
been recovered at the airport. He further points out alleged irregularities in
the sealing, handling and preservation of the recovered substance, as well as
the delay in initiating proceedings under Section 52A NDPS Act. The
Applicant also asserts that he has clean antecedents.
4. Customs opposes bail, emphasising the commercial quantity of
cocaine allegedly recovered from the Applicant’s body. It maintains that the
search, recovery and seizure proceedings were duly documented. It further
submits that the Applicant remained in hospital under medical supervision
for completion of the recovery process and to ensure his safety. Customs
disputes the allegations of procedural irregularities. It also relies on the
restrictions imposed by Section 37 NDPS Act and contends that the
Applicant, being a foreign national residing in Uganda without established
roots in India, presents a risk of absconding.
5. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions and the record.
The principal consideration in the present case is the Applicant’s prolonged
incarceration and the slow progress of trial. The right to speedy trial is an
integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution. In Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 2 of 9

1
of Delhi) , the Supreme Court examined this constitutional guarantee in the
context of the restrictions imposed by Section 37 NDPS Act. It clarified that
the grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be
2
fettered by Section 37 NDPS Act. In Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha , the
Supreme Court granted bail to an accused who had remained in custody for
more than three-and-a-half years, with only 1 of the 19 witnesses examined.
After noting the prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of trial, the
Court observed that such incarceration generally militates against the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and that, in such situations,
conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo under Section
37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act.
6. The Supreme Court has applied this approach in its subsequent orders.
3
In Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh , the Court granted bail
after more than two years of custody, taking into account the panch
witnesses’ failure to support the prosecution case. It observed that prolonged
incarceration resulting from failure to conclude trial within a reasonable
time militates against Article 21 and conditional liberty overriding the
statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act may be considered in such
4
circumstances. Then, in Rijesh Ravindran v. Union of India , bail was
granted after more than four years of custody, having regard to the absence
of antecedents and the lack of progress in trial. Similarly, in Vijay Singh v.
5
Union of India , the Supreme Court granted bail where the accused had
remained in custody for over four years and only two prosecution witnesses

1
(2023) 18 SCC 166.
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109.
3
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730.
4 th
SLP (Crl.) No. 12109/2024, decided on 19 November, 2024.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 3 of 9

6
had been examined. In Ranjan Kare v. State of Chhattisgarh , bail was
granted after more than four years of incarceration, taking into account the
absence of criminal antecedents. More recently, in Chintan Rajubhai
7
Panseriya v. State of Maharashtra , the Supreme Court granted bail after
approximately three-and-a-half years of custody, noting that the examination
of 159 proposed witnesses would take considerable time. In Reginamary
8
Chellamani v. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs , involving a
commercial quantity of contraband, bail was granted after four years, one
month and twenty-eight days of custody, with parity also weighing in favour
of the accused. While these decisions turn upon their respective facts, they
reflect the consistent judicial concern that prolonged pre-trial incarceration
cannot be allowed to continue without regard to the progress of proceedings.
th
7. In the present case, the Applicant has remained in custody since 10
April, 2022 and has undergone more than 4 years and 6 months of
incarceration. His Nominal Roll records satisfactory jail conduct, with no
other pending criminal case or conviction. Although charges were framed on
th
17 March, 2023, only 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined. While
the Customs’ records contain differing figures for the total number of
witnesses, its counsel confirms that 33 witnesses have been cited. The trial
is, therefore, far from completion. The Trial Court has recorded that the
Applicant failed to cross-examine PW-1 despite an opportunity being
granted. That lapse is relevant, but does not, by itself, explain the overall
delay. The Applicant has already spent a considerable period in custody

5 rd
SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 43071/2024, decided on 3 December, 2024.
6 th
SLP (Crl.) No. 15748/2024, decided on 14 February, 2025.
7 th
SLP (Crl.) No. 439/2026, decided on 28 January, 2026.
8
2026 SCC OnLine SC 151.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 4 of 9

without a determination of his guilt, and his continued detention for an
uncertain period raises a serious concern under Article 21.
8. The Court is conscious, however, that the alleged recovery involves
commercial quantity of cocaine and that the statutory restrictions under
Section 37 NDPS Act must be addressed. In State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder
9
Singh @ Gora , the Supreme Court emphasized that the twin conditions
under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act are mandatory and that prolonged
incarceration, by itself, does not dispense with the requirement of recording
satisfaction on those conditions. There, the accused had remained in custody
for 2 years, 1 month and 2 days, with only 2 of the 24 prosecution witnesses
examined. The Court nevertheless set aside the bail order, as the High Court
had not recorded its satisfaction under Section 37. This decision re-affirms
the mandatory character of Section 37 but arose in circumstances materially
different from the present case.
9. The position has also since been considered by the Supreme Court in
10
Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara . After referring to the
decisions governing bail under the NDPS Act, including Sukhwinder Singh ,
the Supreme Court observed that Article 21 considerations remain, but
cannot be considered independent of the statutory rigours. It further held that
special statutes cannot become vehicles of indefinite detention, while
emphasising that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the
statutory restrictions must be considered in harmony. The present
application must, therefore, be examined on its own facts, including the
prosecution material, the period of incarceration and the progress of trial.

9
(2026) 7 SCC 513.
10
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1585.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 5 of 9

10. The prosecution case rests upon the alleged recovery of 1,088 grams
of cocaine from capsules ingested by the Applicant. The contemporaneous
seizure documents and the laboratory report constitute substantial
incriminating material. There are, however, certain aspects of the evidence
already recorded which raise questions concerning the handling and
preservation of the recovered substance. PW-4 acknowledged discrepancies
in the description of the seal and the absence of corresponding particulars in
the handing-over records. He also admitted that the capsules were placed in
a container by a Havaldar whose involvement was not recorded in the
panchnamas, and that the case property had been kept in a drawer without an
attempt to deposit it promptly in the Malkhana. The capsules in the
th
containers were cut open on 9 April, 2022, while samples under Section
th
52A NDPS Act were drawn only on 5 August, 2022. Customs relies upon
the contemporaneous records, the condition of the seals and the laboratory
findings to establish the integrity of the recovery. These circumstances
cannot be disregarded. Equally, the questions arising from the handling and
preservation of the recovered material, particularly concerning the continuity
of its custody, cannot be dismissed as inconsequential. On a broad and
provisional assessment, these circumstances furnish reasonable grounds for
a prima facie belief that the Applicant may not be guilty of the offences
charged, for the limited purpose of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act. This
assessment does not rest merely upon the period of custody, nor does it
determine the ultimate evidentiary worth of the recovery proceedings, which
remains to be examined at trial.
11. The second requirement under Section 37 also stands satisfied. The
Nominal Roll records no other pending criminal case or conviction against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 6 of 9

the Applicant, and his conduct in custody has remained satisfactory. No
material has been placed on record indicating that he is likely to commit an
offence while on bail. His foreign nationality and the absence of established
residential ties in India raise a legitimate concern regarding his availability
for trial. That concern, however, can be addressed through appropriate
safeguards, including verification of his residence and sureties, surrender of
his passport, restrictions on travel and compliance with the applicable
immigration requirements. The Supreme Court in Chidiebere Kingsley
Nawchara has recognised that foreign nationals enjoy the protection of
Article 21, while permitting additional safeguards to secure their presence.
12. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. The Applicant shall be
released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of INR
50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court/Duty MM, subject to the following conditions:
a. Before his release, the Applicant shall furnish his complete and
verifiable residential address in Delhi, along with his contact particulars. He
shall reside at the said address during the pendency of the trial and shall not
change his residence without prior permission of the Trial Court. The
investigating agency shall physically verify the address within three days of
its disclosure and place the verification report before the Trial Court prior to
his release.
b. The Applicant shall furnish sureties in accordance with Chidiebere
Kingsley Nawchara . The identity, address and financial capacity of the
sureties shall be verified in accordance with the procedure contemplated in
the said judgment. Such verification shall be completed within three days,
and the verification reports shall be placed before the Trial Court prior to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 7 of 9

Applicant’s release. A lien or charge equal to the amount of each surety
bond shall be created over the property furnished by the respective surety. If,
despite sufficient efforts, the Applicant is unable to arrange two sureties, the
Trial Court may relax this requirement by a written order recording reasons.
c. The Applicant shall deposit his passport, including any expired
passport in his possession, with the Trial Court before his release. If the
passport is already in the custody of any authority, the IO shall ensure that it
is placed before the Trial Court. If the Applicant does not possess or is
unable to produce his passport, he shall disclose the circumstances and its
whereabouts, if known, by way of an affidavit. He shall not leave India
without prior permission of the Trial Court.
d. The Applicant shall register with the Foreigners Regional Registration
Office [“FRRO”] within one week of his release and communicate such
registration in writing to the IO and the Trial Court.
e. The Applicant shall not leave the National Capital Region without
prior permission of the Trial Court. He shall mark his presence once every
month at the police station having jurisdiction over his verified place of
residence, at a time specified by the officer in charge.
f. The Applicant shall furnish an operational Indian mobile number to
the IO and the Trial Court within one week of his release. He shall keep the
number active and accessible at all times. Any change in the number or
other contact particulars shall be promptly communicated to the IO and the
Trial Court.
g. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of
hearing, unless exempted.
h. The Applicant shall, within one week of his release, file an affidavit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 8 of 9

before the Trial Court disclosing his source of income or funds in India and
the particulars of all bank accounts, if any, maintained by him in the
country.
i. The IO shall, through written communication, inform the High
Commission of Uganda of the Applicant’s involvement in the present case
and his release on bail. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the
concerned FRRO and immigration authorities for information and necessary
action, if any, in accordance with law.
13. The Trial Court shall ensure compliance with the applicable directions
in Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara while accepting the bail bonds and
verifying the sureties. Any breach of the conditions imposed herein shall
entitle Customs to seek cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. The
Trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. Both
sides shall extend their cooperation in that regard.
14. The prima facie observations made in this order are confined to the
consideration of the present bail application and shall not influence the
determination of the case on merits.
15. The bail application stands disposed of, along with any other pending
application.
16. Copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court and the
concerned Jail Superintendent, for necessary information and compliance.


SANJEEV NARULA, J
NOVEMBER 02, 2026/ab
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
20:55:10
BAIL APPLN. 3387/2026 Page 9 of 9