Notice to join inquiry under Section 67 NDPS Act precludes claim of illegal detention prior to formal arrest.

The applicant, a Nigerian national, was arrested following a "controlled delivery" operation conducted by the NCB on September 4-5, 2022.

Earlier that day, a Singaporean national, Kamalden, was intercepted at IGI Airport with 19.867 grams of heroin.

Based on Kamalden's information, the NCB conducted a sting at a hotel in Dwarka, where the applicant arrived to take delivery of the contraband and paid USD 1,000 for what turned out to be a dummy bag.

This is the applicant’s third bail application.

The applicant contended that her arrest was illegal as she was apprehended at 09:10 PM on September 4, 2022, but produced before a Magistrate only on September 6, 2022, exceeding the 24-hour limit.

1. Whether the arrest of the applicant was illegal due to non-production before a Magistrate within 24 hours of her initial apprehension.

2. Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in a case involving commercial quantity.

The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that for commercial quantities of contraband, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Section 67 of the NDPS Act regarding the issuance of notices to join an inquiry.

Regarding the timing of arrest, the Court distinguished the precedent Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma (2025 INSC 141), noting that the 24-hour production rule triggers upon formal arrest or detention, not necessarily upon the service of a notice to join an inquiry.

The Court rejected the "illegal arrest" argument, finding that the applicant was served a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on September 4 to join the inquiry and was formally arrested only at 05:50 PM on September 5, 2022.

Consequently, her production before the Judge on September 6 was within the statutory 24-hour limit.

The Court distinguished Subhash Sharma because, unlike that case where the accused was immediately detained under a Lookout Circular without notice, here the applicant was legally called to join an inquiry first.

On the merits, the Court reviewed WhatsApp chats between the handler (Steven Vilkins) and the co-accused (Kamalden), which detailed the applicant's specific hotel room and instructions for the transaction, establishing her complicity.

It concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty, thus failing the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The bail application was dismissed.