Bopulenge Mireille Ndomba vs Customs

Court
Delhi High Court

$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 03.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010288752026
BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026
+
BOPULENGE MIREILLE NDOMBA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanya Kushwaha and Mr. J.S.
Kushwaha, Advocates.

versus
CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. AtulTripathi, SSC, CBIC along
with Mr. AkshaySagar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL )



1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, a national of the
Democratic Republic of Congo, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarika Surksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in File/C.No.
VIII(AP)10/P&I/5268-C/ARRIVAL/2025 (registered as SC No. 560/2025),
for offences under Sections 8, 21, 23 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’), pending before the learned
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
2. The petitioner’s earlier bail application was dismissed by the ASJ,
Special Judge, (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, vide order dated 29.04.2026.
3. The relevant factual conspectus of the case is that on 19.02.2025, the
petitioner arrived at T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi at about 03:00 AM and was
intercepted. Nothing was found in her baggage and on the same day since her

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 1 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

health was continuously deteriorating, she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital,
under the escort of Customs officers, at around 04:15 AM.
4. By order dated 20.02.2025 under Section 103 of the Customs Act, the
learned JMFC permitted the petitioner’s medical examination at Safdarjung
hospital for her screening and scanning. Pertinently, the said order does not
authorise the petitioner’s detention. The petitioner eased out 6 capsules on
19.02.2025 and 2 capsules on 21.02.2025 which were totally found to contain
582 grams of cocaine. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on
28.02.2025 at about 08:35 PM and thereafter she was taken to IGI Airport at
about 10:00 PM.
5. After reaching the Airport, it is submitted that the petitioner “requested

for rest before taking part in further Customs proceedings”. The further
Customs proceeding began at about 01:00 PM on 01.03.2025 and concluded
at about 8:30PM on the same day. The petitioner was arrested under Section
43(b) of the NDPS Act at about 12:20 PM on 02.03.2025 and as per the
respondent, was thereafter produced before the Court and remanded to
judicial custody.
6. The complaint was filed on 26.08.2025 and the charges were framed on
12.11.2025. Only 2 out of 32 witnesses have been examined and the petitioner
has been in custody for about 1 year and 8 months.
7. On 30.10.2026, this Court recorded the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as follows:

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 2 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

8. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the present
petition. It is submitted that the petitioner’s health required immediate
hospitalisation and an application under Section 103 of the Customs Act was
filed within 24 hours and the same was allowed by the learned JMFC on
20.02.2025.
9. It is submitted that after her discharge, the petitioner herself requested
for some rest before taking part in further Customs proceedings. It is pointed
that the same is recorded in the Panchnama dated 01.03.2025 and the
petitioner’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act (filed as Annexure

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 3 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

A-7 and A-8 of the fresh Status Report dated 06.10.2026). It is submitted that
the objections as to the manner of obtaining her consent, are a matter for trial.
10. This Court has considered the respective contentions of the parties.
11. The Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India requires that every person
arrested and detained in custody is to be produced before the nearest
Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey, and
forbids detention beyond that period without the Magistrate’s authority. This
Constitutional safeguard is sacrosanct.
12. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma , 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 240, the Supreme Court held that the 24 hours run from when the
person is actually taken into custody, not from the time of arrest shown on
paper, and further held as under:-
“6. This argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the LOC was issued at the
instance of the appellant-Directorate of Enforcement. By executing the LOC,
the Bureau of Immigration detained the respondent at IGI Airport from 4th
March 2022 on behalf of the Appellant. The finding of fact recorded in
paragraph 10 is that undisputedly, the physical custody of the respondent was
taken over by the appellant from the Bureau of Immigration at 11.00 hours on
5th March, 2022. Thereafter, at 1.15 hours on 6th March 2022, an arrest
memo was prepared by ED at Raipur. He was produced before the Court at 3
p.m. on 6th March, 2024. The perusal of the arrest order(Annexure p-1) shows
that the typed order was kept ready. The date and time of arrest were kept
blank which appear to have been filled in by hand. Admittedly, the respondent
was not produced before the nearest learned Magistrate within 24 hours from
11.00 a.m. on 5th March, 2022. Therefore, the arrest of the respondent is
rendered completely illegal as a result of the violation of clause 2 of Article 22
of the Constitution of India.
Thus, the continuation of the respondent in custody
without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time
of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under
clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, his arrest gets
vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a violation of
Article 22(2) of the Constitution, even his fundamental right to liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated.”
*
8. Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the
fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 4 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him,
it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the
accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is
the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.”

13. Even where the contraband has been recovered and the person has been
kept under the control of the officers, the person must be arrested and
produced before the Court. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana , (2025) 5
SCC 799, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“21. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
first respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly
remanded to custody, and now a charge-sheet has been filed. His
submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order
taking cognizance passed on the charge-sheet. Accepting such arguments,
with great respect to the learned Senior Counsel, will amount to completely
nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.
Once it is held that
arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is
vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of
remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge-sheet and order of cognizance will
not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of
Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the
most important safeguards provided under Article 22.”

14. Reference may also be made to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Habiob Bedru Omer vs Customs 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4263
wherein the following observations have been made:
“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

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 5 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

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.”

15. In the given factual conspectus, when particularly considering the time
lapse between the period when the petitioner was detained and finally
produced before the magistrate, the petitioner is entitled for bail for the
following reasons:
(i) The period after the petitioner’s discharge is decisive. The
respondent’s own records show that she was discharged from
hospital at about 08:35 PM on 28.02.2025 and thereafter, no
medical reason existed. The petitioner was then taken to the
airport for further customs proceedings, but was neither arrested
nor produced before the Magistrate until about 12:20 PM on
02.03.2025 i.e. nearly 40 hours late;
(ii) It is clear that the petitioner was not at liberty during the
aforesaid period. The respondent relies upon the recording in the
Panchnama dated 01.03.2025 and on the statement of the
petitioner (appended as Annexure A-8 to the fresh Status Report
dated 06.10.2026) which record that on reaching the airport, the
petitioner requested for rest before taking part in further customs
proceedings.
The same does not inure to the benefit of the respondent.

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 6 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

The documents relied upon by the respondent itself record that
the petitioner was taken back to the airport by the customs
officers and that she asked the officer to allow her rest. Clearly,
the petitioner was not at liberty during this period.
Further, a request for rest cannot be treated to be consent
to detention beyond 24 hours and cannot dispense with the
constitutional requirement for production before a Magistrate. In
any event, it could at best account for the night of 28.02.2025.
The Panchnama proceedings began at about 01:00 PM and
concluded at 08:30 PM at about 01.03.2025. The petitioner was
arrested at about 12:20 PM on 02.03.2025 viz . around 16 hours
after the Panchnama was recorded. That period is not explained
at all.
(iii) It is also noted that the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the
learned JMFC only permits the petitioners medical examination
at the hospital, it neither authorised her detention nor covered the
period after her discharge.
(iv) The recovery from the petitioner was complete by 21.02.2025
and the offence alleged against her stood fully disclosed. There
was no impediment to her arrest and production, if necessary,
with a prayer for her continued hospitalization. Yet she was not
arrested while in hospital and, after her discharge, she was kept
at the Airport for a significant period of time, before she was
arrested.
16. This Court has not decided whether the period of hospitalisation itself
amounted to custody, inasmuch as even excluding it, the period after

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 7 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

discharge, exceeds 24 hours. This Court also takes note of the fact that the
petitioner has been in custody for about 1 year and 8 months, only 2 out of 32
prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is likely to take
considerable time to complete.
17. As the petitioner is a foreign national accused of an offence involving
commercial quantity, the directions in paragraph 29 of Union of India v.
Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1585 apply.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on
furnishing a bail bond in Form-47A in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court,
subject to the following conditions:-
i. The passport of the petitioner shall be deposited with the learned Trial
Court, and she shall not travel outside the country without prior
permission of the learned Trial Court;
ii. The petitioner shall register with the Foreigners Regional Registration
Office (FRRO) within one week of release and inform the IO and the
learned Trial Court in writing of having made such registration;
iii. The petitioner shall file before the learned Trial Court an affidavit
indicating her source of income/funds within India and details of all
bank accounts, if any, in the country;
iv. The petitioner shall provide her permanent address to the learned Trial
Court and also the address where she will be residing during the
pendency of the case;
v. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer (IO) of any
change in her residential address and shall file an affidavit to that effect
before the learned Trial Court;

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 8 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

vi. The petitioner shall furnish her mobile number to the IO, which shall be
kept in working condition and switched on at all times. The mobile
number shall not be changed without prior intimation to the IO during
the pendency of the trial;
vii. The petitioner shall report to the IO as and when called upon to do so;
viii. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, contact the complainant,
any prosecution witness, or their family members;
ix. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, or
tamper with the evidence in the case in any manner whatsoever;
x. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and
every date of hearing;
xi. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the
period of bail; and
xii. The petitioner shall report to the concerned IO on the first Monday of
every month at 11:00 AM and shall be discharged by 01:00 PM, after
her presence has been recorded and the necessary formalities have been
completed.
18. In terms of paragraph 29 of Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara (supra) ,
the sureties shall be verified within 3 days and the verification report placed
before the learned Trial Court prior to the release of the petitioner; the
residential address and contact details of the petitioner within India shall be
physically re-verified prior to her release; a lien/charge equal to the amount of
the surety bond shall be created on the property of each surety; and the IO
shall inform the Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo, in writing, of
the petitioner’s involvement in the present case. If the petitioner is unable to

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 9 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43

secure two sureties despite sufficient effort, it shall be open to her to apply to
the learned Trial Court for relaxation of that condition.
19. If any of the above conditions is breached, it shall be open to the
respondent to seek cancellation of bail.
20. The present application is disposed of in the above terms.
21. The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial proceedings to
the extent feasible.
22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall neither influence the
trial proceedings nor be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on
the merits of the case.
23. A copy of this order be communicated electronically to the concerned
Jail Superintendent, the learned Trial Court and the concerned FRRO for
information and necessary compliance.


SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ at/nb

BAIL APPLN. 2563/2026 Page 10 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:39:43