Ignorance Of Nature Of Contraband No Defence Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court While Denying Bail In Drug Trafficking Case
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to two men in an alleged drug trafficking syndicate case, observing that ignorance of the nature of contraband is no defence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ajay Digpaul denied bail to a Nigerian national Ekoh Collins Chidubem and one Pradeep Kumar Jha in a case registered under Sections 8, 21, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
It was NCB's case that on raiding the office of DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. in Delhi, two packets containing heroine weighing 376 grams and 374 grams respectively, were found and the contraband was seized.
Jha was named as the consignee and admitted knowledge of the parcel. He also showed the airway bill on his mobile phone when the NCB team reached his residence. In his voluntary statement, he disclosed that parcels were being sent from South Africa by one Martin Gary and were regularly handed over by him to a Nigerian national in Delhi in lieu of monetary consideration.
He also said that another parcel was to be delivered. On the said location, Chidubem was apprehended. In his voluntary statement, he disclosed that he had earlier collected 7-8 parcels from Jha on instructions of his South African associate. Both the applicants were arrested in May 2022.
It was their case that Chidubem was apprehended solely on the basis of disclosure made by Jha, and that no contraband or incriminating material was recovered from them personally.
It was also submitted that Jha was merely involved in the transportation of the parcel as an employee of a logistics agency, and the nominal monetary transaction alleged between them did not implicate them in trafficking of contraband.
Dismissing the bail pleas, the Court observed that there was no violation of procedure, and any perceived delay did not amount to illegality capable of undermining the prosecution's case.
On the alleged discrepancy in the colour of the contraband, the Court said that to allow the petitioners to claim bail merely on the basis of a minor variation in shade, without affording the Investigating Officer the opportunity to elucidate the discrepancy, would be manifestly inequitable.
Further, the judge said that the Call Detail Records demonstrated that, around the time of the incident, the petitioners were in regular communication with one another as well as with the consignee of the parcel from which the contraband was recovered.
The Court said that the said communications, when read in conjunction with the WhatsApp chats, prima facie provided substantial material implicating the petitioners.
“It is observed that the disclosure statement is not the only basis to account for the petitioner's implication in the present matter, rather the same is further corroborated by the seizure of the contraband, independent witness accounts, CDRs, financial transactions, and digital communications, all of which collectively provide a prima facie case against the petitioners,” the Court said.
It added that the commercial quantity of the contraband involved, the clandestine manner in which the conspiracy was executed, and the cumulative material on record, including voluntary statements, bank transaction, CDRs, and WhatsApp chats linking the petitioners to the consignment, it was evident that the statutory conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act are not satisfied.
The Court noted that Chidubem was a foreign national residing without valid documentation, which created a substantial risk of absconding or evading the course of justice.
“The role of the petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Jha, has come forth inasmuch as he was to receive the said contraband, and in his disclosure, he has categorically stated that the same was intended to be handed over to the petitioner, Ekoh Collins Chidubem. These circumstances, taken together prima facie indicate the modus operandi adopted in the present transaction. Ignorance of the nature or contents of the contraband cannot be taken as a defence and shall not enure to the benefit of the accused,” it concluded.
Title: EKOH COLLINS CHIDUBEM v. NCB & other connected matter