TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereafter 'NDPS Act']. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that acting upon specific intelligence, a team of officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted three passengers, namely, Cynthia Adaobi Chukwuka (a passport holder of Nigeria), Donnatus Chukwuka (a passport holder of Nigeria), and the present applicant, Konan Jacques Yao (a passport holder of Ivory Coast), who had arrived at Terminal-3 of IGI Airport, New Delhi from Addis Ababa on 18.07.2023 at about 01:00 hrs. The said passengers were intercepted while attempting to cross the green channel, as the DRI officers had prior information that they were carrying narcotic substanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordance with law. It is further the case of the prosecution that during their stay at the hospital, the present applicant exhibited noncooperative behaviour and resisted supervision by DRI officials. All proceedings were duly recorded in panchnamas prepared at the spot. Upon discharge from the hospital, the medical documents of all accused persons, including discharge summaries and radiological reports, corroborated the presence of foreign bodies in their systems. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleges that all three accused persons were acting in concert and were part of a larger criminal conspiracy involving the smuggling of narcotic substances into India. It is stated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused persons was obtained, which amounts to a violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 103 of the Customs Act, rendering the detention of the accused illegal and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that no incriminating material was recovered from the mobile phone of the present applicant to establish any nexus with the co-accused persons. The learned counsel also submits that co-accused Cynthia has already been granted regular bail, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is additionally contended that no audio or videography of the search and seizure proceedings was conducted by the DRI officials, nor were any ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PM) 20 - 19.07.2023 (09:00 PM) to 20.07.2023 (09:00 AM) 06 - 20.07.2023 (09:00 PM) to 21.07.2023 (09:00 PM) 04 - 21.07.2023 (09:00 AM to 21.07.2023 (09:00 PM) 7 - 22.07.2023 (09:00 AM) to 22.07.2023 (09:00 PM) 2 - 24.07.2023 (09:00 AM) to 25.07.2023 (09:00 AM) 4 - 27.07.2023 (09:00 PM) to 28.07.2023 (09:00 AM) - 1 28.07.2023 (09:00 AM) to 28.07.2023 (09:00 PM) - 1 Total 84 7 5. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant as well as the respondent/DRI, and has perused the material available on record. 6. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... belief. In the present case, since the accused persons were intercepted at the airport itself, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would govern the field, and therefore, the argument regarding noncompliance of Sections 41 and 42 does not prima facie persuade this Court at this stage. Moreover, the specific argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that search of accused persons was conducted in a restricted area of the customs department is also not acceptable, as this Court in Santini Simone (supra) also specifically observed that "the contention that certain areas in the airport cannot be described as a public place merely because the entry is restricted, was expressly rejected" by Division Bench of this Court in Utpal M....