Delhi HC Grants Bail To Congolese National In NDPS Case Over Doubt On Notice Comprehension

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a French-speaking national of the Democratic Republic of Congo accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after observing that it was unclear whether he was able to comprehend the contents of the statutory notice allegedly served upon him and whether the procedural safeguards governing recovery of contraband from a human body had been followed in their true letter and spirit.

Justice Manoj Jain was dealing with a bail application in a case registered for offences under Sections 8, 21, 23 and 28 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant, a holder of a Congolaise passport, had arrived at Terminal-3 of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on February 20, 2022 on a flight from Addis Ababa.

According to the prosecution, he walked through the green channel and, when asked by Customs officials whether he was carrying any contraband or gold, replied in the negative.

His baggage and personal search did not initially yield anything suspicious.

However, on account of continued suspicion, further inquiry was conducted, during which it allegedly emerged that he had ingested capsules containing narcotic substance.

Nineteen pellets were first extracted from him and, subsequently, a total of seventy-three capsules containing 986 grams of a powdery substance suspected to be cocaine were recovered and seized.

The Customs authorities claimed that a notice under Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 had been served upon him and that he had voluntarily admitted to having ingested narcotic capsules and expressed willingness to undergo medical procedures for their extraction.

The recovery was stated to have been effected in the presence of independent panch witnesses and in compliance with statutory requirements, including the issuance of notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and Sections 102 and 103 of the Customs Act.

The applicant, however, contended that once he had been intercepted and it was suspected that contraband was concealed inside his body, he ought to have been produced before a Magistrate without delay and that the mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act had not been adhered to.

It was argued that after the initial recovery of nineteen capsules at the airport itself, no effort was made to produce him before the Court or to obtain judicial permission for the subsequent extraction of further capsules, thereby rendering his continued custody illegal.

It was further submitted that the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was prepared only on February 25, 2022, beyond the stipulated period of forty-eight hours, and that the applicant remained in custody without being produced before the Magistrate.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution maintained that all procedural and statutory requirements had been duly complied with, that the applicant had been served with the necessary notices, and that his willingness had been recorded before undertaking the medical procedure.

It was also contended that the alleged infractions were matters for trial and could not be adjudicated at the stage of bail.

The Court noted at the outset that while the act of ingesting contraband prima facie indicated complicity, the Court was also required to examine whether the safeguards applicable in cases where goods liable to confiscation are secreted inside the human body had been followed.

On a perusal of the material placed on record, the Court found that the notice purportedly explaining the rights of the accused had been translated into French for him, as he did not understand English. However, the witness who claimed to have explained the notice had merely recorded a one-line endorsement stating that the contents had been explained in French.

The Court observed that this endorsement did not disclose the response of the applicant, nor did it reflect any specific admission or willingness on his part.

The Court held that from such a cryptic endorsement it was difficult to decipher whether the applicant had actually understood the contents of the notice or the implications of the procedure to which he was allegedly consenting.

It emphasised that such a crucial aspect could not be left to inference or imagination, particularly in a case involving recovery of contraband from the human body and serious penal consequences under the NDPS Act.

Taking note of these aspects and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case for grant of bail and allowed the application subject to conditions.

Case Title: Kitoko Ngeimbo Alain v. Customs

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Date of Judgment: 17.02.2026