Recovery of Drugs from Shared Space of Couple Attracts Liability of Both: Delhi HC – News18

The Delhi High Court recently ruled in a case that since both the bail applicant and her husband were admitted consumers of narcotic substances, it is certain to assume that both were aware of the contraband kept in their bedroom, and were in conscious possession of the same. It added that since the office space of the applicant’s husband was separate, the liability of recoveries made from that area cannot be imputed upon the wife/applicant.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, while allowing the bail application of the wife of the accused, said, “The office being a place where parties carry out their work and responsibilities where the upper floor was under the control of the husband of the Applicant shows that only Krunal Golwala had control and dominion of the premises from where the contraband was recovered. Thus, the Applicant cannot be stated to be in conscious possession of the contraband recovered from the exclusive office premises of co-accused/husband, Krunal Golwala.”

The case concerns a drug syndicate running on messaging app Telegram, regarding which recoveries were made in small, intermediate, and commercial quantities, from the residence of the applicant and office space of the husband.

The recovery of ganja was made from shared space of the applicant and her husband, in respect of which, the court said, “Recovery of Ganja from the bedroom may be at the instance of the husband of the Applicant but the fact remains that it was recovered from the joint space of the Applicant and her husband. It is nowhere stated or argued that the Applicant and her husband were living in separate rooms or had strained relationships. The recovery was also not from a person but from a joint space and hence, to state that the recovery of 1.03 kgs made from the bedroom cannot be attributable to the Applicant would be a wrong assertion.”

As per the counsel for the applicant, the recovery was attributable exclusively to the husband. The contraband of 1.03 kg of ganja recovered from the shared residence of the Golwalas, was at best, an intermediate quantity.

With regards to data from the applicant’s phone, her counsel submitted that all conversations pertained to “weed”, “hashish”, or chocolates made therefrom and their recovery was in small quantity, or intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply. Parity with other similarly situated persons was further pleaded.

The counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) submitted that the trial court rightly considered the facts on record and found that there was recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the residence and office of Krunal Golwala and the applicant, therefore, there is a definite presumption under section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, 1985, against the applicant, and that there was joint possession and established conspiracy against the parties.

A bail plea for offences including, contravention of provisions related to cannabis, recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and illegal import/transhipment of narcotic drugs – Ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 20(b)(ii)(B), 21(b), 22(c), 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was being heard by the court.

The HC relied on the Supreme Court decision in Jitendra Jain v. NCB, SLP (Crl.) 8900 of 2022.