New Delhi: If drugs are recovered from a couple’s bedroom in a residential setting, the responsibility can be attributed to both if they are consumers of narcotic substances, the Delhi High Court has observed.
The court was hearing a bail plea filed by the wife in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) registered against both — the husband and wife — by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that the recovery of drugs from the bedroom might have been at the husband’s instance, but since it was found in their joint living space, the liability cannot be solely placed on the husband.
The court mentioned that the couple, in this case, were both consumers of narcotic substances and shared a special relationship as husband and wife. Therefore, it was reasonable to infer that both were aware of the contraband found in their bedroom and consciously possessed it.
“Being husband and wife, they share a special relationship, therefore, it is trite to infer that the applicant as well as her husband/co-accused, Krunal Golwala were aware of the contraband kept in their bedroom at their residence and were in conscious possession of the same,” the court said.
The case revolves around an alleged drug syndicate operating through the Telegram messaging app.
Drugs were reportedly discovered at the couple’s residence and the husband’s office premises.
The woman’s counsel argued that the recovery was at the husband’s instance, but the court pointed out that it had not been argued that the couple lived in separate rooms or had a strained relationship.
Given that the recovery was from a joint space and both were consumers of narcotics, the court concluded that both were conscious of the contraband.
However, due to the fact that the quantity of ganja recovered fell under the intermediate range, the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were deemed inapplicable.
Regarding the recovery of a commercial quantity of drugs at the husband’s office, the court noted that the office premises were separate from the couple’s living space, and the recovery there couldn’t be attributed to the wife.
The court also observed that while the woman had the potential to deal in commercial quantities of drugs, potential alone would not fall within the purview of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Considering various factors, including the absence of flight risk and the lack of evidence tampering or witness influencing concerns, the court granted bail to the woman.
The question of whether she was a drug dealer or not would be determined during the trial, the court said.
–IANS