Delhi HC Grants Bail to Ugandan Accused in 1.088-Kg Cocaine Case After 4½ Years, Citing Trial Delay and Evidence-Handling Questions

The Applicant, a Ugandan national, was charged under Sections 21(c) and 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), after Customs officials allegedly recovered 85 capsules containing approximately 1,088 grams of cocaine from him at IGI Airport and at a hospital.

He was arrested on 10 April 2022; the complaint was filed on 6 October 2022, and charges were framed on 17 March 2023.

Seeking regular bail, he relied principally on prolonged custody and the slow progress of trial, and also alleged defects in the handling and preservation of the seized substance.

Customs opposed bail, relying on the commercial quantity, Section 37 NDPS Act, and the risk of absconding.

At the time of the decision, the Applicant had been in custody for more than four years and six months; six of 33 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to a speedy trial, and prolonged pre-trial detention may justify conditional liberty where proceedings are unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time; Section 37 NDPS Act’s restrictions must nevertheless be addressed, including its twin conditions that there be reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court relied on Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi, Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, and subsequent Supreme Court bail decisions as recognizing the constitutional concern raised by prolonged incarceration in NDPS cases.

It also considered State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, which reaffirmed that Section 37’s conditions are mandatory, and Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, which requires Article 21 considerations and statutory restrictions to be considered harmoniously and permits safeguards to secure a foreign national’s attendance.

The Court found that custody exceeding four years and six months, with only six of 33 witnesses examined, raised a serious Article 21 concern; the Applicant’s failure to cross-examine one witness did not explain the overall delay.

Addressing Section 37 independently of the delay, the Court considered PW-4’s evidence concerning discrepancies in seal descriptions and handover records, an unrecorded participant in handling the capsules, storage of the case property in a drawer, and the interval between opening the capsules and drawing Section 52A samples.

On a provisional assessment, these matters raised questions about continuity of custody and supplied reasonable grounds for the limited Section 37 assessment, without determining the evidence’s ultimate weight at trial.

The Court also found no other pending case or conviction, satisfactory jail conduct, and no material indicating likely offending on bail. It considered the foreign-nationality concern manageable through residence verification, surety checks, passport surrender, travel restrictions, and reporting requirements.

The Court directed the Trial Court to ensure compliance with Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, noted that breach of conditions could support cancellation of bail, and directed that the trial be pursued expeditiously.

The Court’s observations were confined to the bail application and were not to affect the determination of the case on merits.