TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apsules containing some narcotics substance. On asking whether he required any medical assistance for extraction of such pellets/capsules, he expressed his desire to go to toilet where he was taken and where he extracted 19 numbers of capsules/pellets. 3. The abovesaid extracted capsules were taken into possession same day i.e. on 20.02.2022. These, allegedly, contained contraband. 4. A notice under Section 103 of Customs Act, 1962 was also served to which applicant, as alleged, voluntarily, admitted that he had ingested capsules containing narcotic substance which were inside his body and submitted his willingness to undergo medical procedure for removal, thereof. 5. Resultantly, he was taken to RML Hospital where applicant eased out 54 more capsules, containing contraband. 6. Thus, there was total recovery of 73 capsules, which contained 986 grams of powdery substance. 7. The substance, suspected to be cocaine, was confiscated under section 43 of NDPS Act on 24.02.2022. 8. The applicant was discharged from RML Hospital on 24.02.2022 and his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act was recorded on 25.02.2022 and thereafter he was put under arrest and seizure and ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l stage and moreover, such aspects regarding alleged infraction or violation are subject matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated herein. He contends that applicant is a foreign national, who has no permanent roots in India and is a flight risk and Court must not employ liberal approach in cases involving commercial quantity. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the material and precedents cited at the Bar. 15. Indubitably, the contentions regarding alleged violations would be appropriately answered during the trial but at the same time, there is no rigid proscription and in case, there is serious violation going to the root of the matter and affecting personal life and liberty, same can be considered, on surface level, at least in these proceedings also. Of course, the act of ingesting contraband may prima facie imply complicity but it also needs to be seen whether procedure applicable for goods liable to confiscation secreted inside body have been followed in letter and spirit or not. 16. As per Section 103 Customs Act, where proper officer has reason to believe that any such person has any goods liable to confiscation secret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior information with regard to the arrival of the present applicant with the contraband. It is, however, the case of the respondent in the complaint filed before the learned Special Court that the applicant was intercepted on the basis of suspicion/profiling. The sequence of events and record would reflect that from the very interception, the respondent had reasons to believe that the applicant was carrying the contraband recovered. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the concerned Officer to comply with the provisions of the NDPS Act. Admittedly, there has been no such compliance and the respondent proceeded to detain the applicant without complying with the aforesaid procedure. The respondent was bound to comply with the aforesaid provisions from the time the applicant was intercepted at the IGI Airport. In any case, when the first set of capsules were seized by panchnama dated 21.05.2023, the respondent was bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is pertinent to note that the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent only on 26.05.2023. 28. The applicant was in the continuous custody of the respondent from 21.05.2023 till 26.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rization, particularly when part-recovery had already taken place at Airport and offence stood revealed. Respondent cannot be absolved merely on the pretext that formal arrest was later. Thus, palpably, the applicant remained in illegal custody of Customs from the date of interception till 25.02.2022. 22. Out of 29 cited witnesses, respondent has, reportedly, examined mere 8 witnesses and the period of total incarceration of the application is close to four years. There is no thumb rule as to when period of incarceration would be labelled as 'prolonged' one. It needs to be evaluated and analyzed, on case-to-case basis. 23. The applicant is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 25.02.2022 and there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future. This Court had earlier dismissed his bail application on 02.12.2024 and by that time, four witnesses had been examined and it was ordered that trial court shall ensure that witnesses are examined expeditiously. Despite such specific directions given by this Court in Bail Application No. 2907/2024, only four witnesses have been examined in last 13 months. 24. When it comes to somebody's life and liberty, Article 21 of ....