2026 (3) TMI 1256 - HC - Customs

NDPS bail and procedural safeguards: incomplete AI-translated notices and delayed magistrate production supported release.

Bail was considered in an NDPS prosecution arising from airport interception and further recovery after medical observation, where the alleged contraband ... Entitlement to bail - illegal custody - detention without production within twenty-four hours - recovery of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances - commercial quantity - translations of statutory notices were effected using an AI tool - Requirement to produce detained person before magistrate within statutory period - procedural compliance of notices under Section 50 NDPS Act and Section 102/103 Customs Act - Violation of personal liberty under Article 21 vis-a -vis NDPS statutory embargo. Requirement to produce detained person before magistrate within statutory period - Detention at the airport and subsequent hospital custody without production before a Magistrate violated the statutory requirement and rendered custody illegal. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that once part-recovery of contraband took place at the airport and the offence stood revealed, the officer was bound to arrest and produce the person before a Magistrate even if further recovery was to be effected. Remanding the person to hospital without magistrate-authorised custody was impermissible; remand for medical procedure could have been sought from the Court or obtained at the hospital by involving the Magistrate. On the facts, the applicant remained in illegal custody from interception until production before the Court. [Paras 16, 25] Custody from interception at the airport until production before the Court was held to be illegal. Procedural compliance of notices under Section 50 NDPS Act and Section 102/103 Customs Act - Documentation and translation of statutory notices were deficient and non-compliant with the statutory prescription. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the translated copies generated through an AI tool were incomplete and did not record the applicant's replies, and that Customs impermissibly added an option (search by a lady officer of Customs) not available under Section 50 NDPS Act, which prescribes search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. These defects made it unclear whether the applicant had been duly apprised of her legal rights in the prescribed manner. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22] Notices and their translations were not shown to be in lawful compliance; the AI-generated translation was incomplete and the statutory form was altered contrary to Section 50. Article 21 considerations can outweigh the statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act when fundamental rights are infringed by procedural violations, warranting bail despite commercial-quantity recovery. - HELD THAT:- As per Nominal Roll of the applicant, she is in custody since the date of her arrest i.e. 07.07.2024 and has no previous involvement in any other case. There is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future. When it comes to somebody’s life and liberty, Article 21 of the Constitution of India must override and prevail over the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Reference be made to Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha [2023 (7) TMI 1459 - SC ORDER]. Relying on precedents and the factual finding of illegal custody and procedural infirmities, the Court held that when liberty is affected by serious procedural violations going to the root of the matter, Article 21 must prevail over the statutory restriction on bail. Considering absence of prior involvement, custodial period since formal arrest, and improbability of trial concluding soon, the Court exercised jurisdiction to grant bail subject to conditions. [Paras 14, 27, 28] Applicant granted bail on conditions notwithstanding recovery of commercial quantity because Article 21 considerations outweighed the statutory embargo in the circumstances. Final Conclusion: The Court found serious procedural non-compliance in detention and in the service/translation of statutory notices, concluded that these infringed personal liberty, and granted regular bail subject to specified conditions while preserving that nothing decided bears on the merits of the prosecution. Issues: Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where part-recovery of contraband occurred at the airport but the accused was not produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours and translations of statutory notices were effected using an AI tool.Analysis: The facts show initial recovery of eight capsules at the airport and further recovery after medical observation, totaling commercial quantity. Notices under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 102 and 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 were served. The legal framework requires that an accused be produced before the nearest Magistrate without unnecessary delay and that procedures under Section 50 NDPS Act be scrupulously followed where detention and search occur. Section 103(8) Customs Act, 1962 excludes persons who admit secreted goods from certain protections, but the record does not disclose a clear, contemporaneous admission in the translated documentation. The translated notices produced via an AI tool are incomplete and do not record the applicant's contemporaneous responses, raising doubt about whether statutory safeguards were observed. Precedents addressing detention without production within twenty-four hours and procedural non-compliance in similar airport ingestion cases have supported bail where illegal custody from interception to formal arrest was found to have occurred. The applicant has no prior involvement, has been in custody since formal arrest date, and there is no prospect of immediate trial conclusion; the risk of flight and the commercial quantity of contraband are relevant but do not preclude relief where fundamental liberties under Article 21 and production requirements under Article 22(2) are implicated.Conclusion: Bail is allowed on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one local surety of like amount and subject to conditions regarding address verification, monthly reporting to the investigating officer, restriction on leaving the National Capital Region without prior permission, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and maintenance of an active mobile number; any breach will invite cancellation of bail.