New Delhi, May 2, 2024: The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has granted bail to Sulaiman Agha Saihoon, an Afghan national, who was arrested in connection with a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS). The bail application, numbered BAIL APPLN. 320/2024, was heard by Hon’ble Justice Amit Mahajan.

Case Background

The case stems from an operation conducted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on November 5, 2020, when Afghan national Ahmad Jan Sediqi was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport upon arrival from Kabul. During interrogation, Sediqi allegedly admitted to having swallowed 87 capsules containing heroin. Following medical intervention at Safdarjung Hospital, 918 grams of heroin were retrieved from his body.

Subsequently, based on Sediqi’s disclosure, the NCB raided the residence of the applicant, Sulaiman Agha Saihoon, in Lajpat Nagar on November 11, 2020. The raid led to the recovery of 30 grams of Charas, 10 grams of Heroin, 5 grams of Cocaine, and 25 grams of Ephedrine, a controlled substance. Saihoon was arrested the same day.

Legal Proceedings and Bail Application

Saihoon’s initial bail application (BAIL APPLN. 4188/2022) was dismissed on September 22, 2023, by the Delhi High Court, allowing him to approach the trial court. However, on January 9, 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts also denied him bail, leading to the current appeal before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant:

• The defense, represented by Advocates Aditya Aggarwal, Naveen Panwar, and Yasir, contended that Saihoon had no prior criminal record and was falsely implicated.
• It was argued that the quantity of narcotics recovered from Saihoon’s residence did not exceed the “intermediate” limit under the NDPS Act, thus not attracting the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the Act.
• No direct link between Saihoon and Sediqi was established through call data records (CDR) or financial transactions.
• Saihoon had already spent over three years in custody, and the trial was progressing at a slow pace with only four out of 13 witnesses examined.

For the Prosecution:

• NCB, represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Subhash Bansal and Advocate Mr. Shashwat Bansal, opposed the bail.
• The prosecution maintained that Saihoon was using a phone number linked to the drug transaction.
• The presence of multiple types of contraband in Saihoon’s house was cited as evidence of his involvement in illicit drug trafficking.
• The prosecution argued that since the total quantity of drugs recovered from both accused exceeded the commercial limit, Saihoon could not seek bail based on the intermediate quantity found in his possession.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

Justice Amit Mahajan, while considering the bail plea, emphasized several key factors:

• Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), disclosure statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act require corroboration and are not admissible as sole evidence.
• The contraband seized from Saihoon’s premises was in small and intermediate quantities, which did not invoke the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• Prolonged incarceration without trial is against the principles of justice, and given the slow pace of proceedings, Saihoon could not be kept in custody indefinitely.
• The Supreme Court precedent in Man Mandal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal was cited, which granted bail on the grounds of prolonged detention.

Bail Conditions

The Court granted bail to Saihoon on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to the following conditions:

1. He cannot leave the National Capital Region (NCR) without court permission and must surrender his passport.
2. He must provide his permanent address to the court and update it if changed.
3. He must keep his mobile phone active and share his number with the investigating officer.
4. He must attend all trial proceedings.
5. He must not tamper with evidence or contact witnesses.
6. The Afghan Embassy must provide an assurance that he will not abscond and will comply with trial proceedings.

Conclusion

While granting bail, Justice Mahajan clarified that observations made in the bail order should not influence the outcome of the trial. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on protecting individual rights while ensuring that the legal process is followed diligently.

This decision highlights the importance of balancing the gravity of drug-related offenses with constitutional safeguards against prolonged detention, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Nishant Upadhyay