Delhi High Court – Orders
Syeeda Abida vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 30 April, 2026
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8018/2026
SYEEDA ABIDA
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Satija, DHCLSC with
Mr. Akash Sachan, Mr. Anuka
Bachawat, Ms. Charu Sinha and Ms.
Khushboo, Advocates.
versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms. Shelly
Dixit, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
ORDER
% 30.04.2026
1. Applicant seeks regular bail in NCB case No. VIII/08/DZU/2023 dated
10.03.2023, registered by NCB, Delhi Zonal Unit, for commission of
offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2. As per the broad allegations and averments appearing in the
complaint, a secret information was received with the vigilance section of
CISF on 09.03.2023, that one Indian lady, intending to travel from Delhi to
Doha by Qatar Airlines via Flight No. QR 4781, would come to Airport with
huge quantity of narcotics.
3. The information was shared with senior officers and a team was
constituted by NCB and as per information, Ms. Syeeda Abida i.e. applicant
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 1
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20
herein was detained at gate No.5 of Departure Area of IGI Airport.
4. The information was shared with her and search was carried out which
revealed 2.39 kg of contraband suspected to be Amphetamine. The requisite
investigation was carried out and documentation was done.
5. Her statement was also recorded.
6. In her statement, she claimed that she had got a proposal of marriage
through Shaadi.com from one Mohd. Mustaq who was residing in California,
USA. Mohd. Mustaq claimed that he was from Mysore, India but born and
brought up in California, USA and was 39 year old widower. The applicant
was, earlier, married but her husband had passed away and, therefore, they
came in contact of each other through the abovesaid matrimonial website.
According to her, she never met him ever and as per his directions, she
travelled from Bangalore to Delhi and at Delhi, she had collected one bag
from Janak Puri. As per the abovesaid statement recorded under Section 67 of
NDPS Act, she also revealed that she knew as to what was contained in the
abovesaid bag. She also stated that her mobile was containing all the details,
including the chats which she had with him and that her mobile also had his
photographs.
7. The investigation qua such other person is still, reportedly, pending.
8. Fact, however, remains that with respect to the applicant herein, the
charges have been ascertained and the case is at the stage of trial.
9. There are in all 18 witnesses and so far, 3 witnesses have been
examined.
10. The applicant is stated to be in custody for more than 3 years.
11. It is submitted that though the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act
mentions that the applicant knew what was contained in the bag in question,
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 2
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20
the applicant never made any such statement. According to learned counsel
for the applicant, she is rather a victim of circumstances and said Mustaq
Mohd. has made a fool of her.
12. It is argued that though, the bag was handed over to her but it was given
with a direction that it contained certain valuables. She never opened the same
and was asked to hand over the same to the concerned recipient, when she was
to land in Doha. Believing him, the applicant never opened the abovesaid bag.
Had she opened the same, she would not have, at all, carried the bag.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during investigation, a
clone of her mobile device was prepared and was duly scrutinized by the
Investigating Agency and various chats would indicate that she was, merely,
communicating with the abovesaid person in utter good faith and never
anticipated that she would be made to carry a contraband from India to
abroad. Simultaneously, it is also contended that there is grave violation of the
established procedure as at the alleged time of seizure, no photography or
videography was carried out. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the Court is required to strike a balance with respect to the fundamental right
as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
14. The present case concerns commercial quantity of contraband and, as
per Section 37 of NDPS Act, twin restrictions on grant of bail will be
applicable. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions,
emphasized that prolonged incarceration at pre-trial stage, even in cases
involving commercial quantity of contraband, would violate Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Reference be made to Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of
Delhi): (2023) 18 SCC 166, Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh:
2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha: 2023 SCC
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20
OnLine SC 1109 and Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing
Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India and Ors.: (1994) 6 SCC 731.
Moreover, the extent of assessment required under Section 37 of NDPS Act is
restricted to only a prima facie assessment and the Court is not required to
come to a conclusion vis-Ã -vis guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
15. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no likelihood of
trial getting completed in near future and there is a serious question mark
whether the possession, in the present circumstances, can be said to be
conscious one or not.
16. All such contentions have been refuted by learned counsel for NCB and
they submit that if such story was actually true, she should have mentioned
the same when her statement was being recorded under Section 67 of NDPS.
17. Admittedly, at the time of the seizure, which took place at a public
place, no videography or photography was done. In Bantu vs. State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4671, this Court has held that even prior
to the abovesaid requirements being introduced in Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, such aspect would be a relevant factor, even at the
stage of grant of bail.
18. The relevant observations of the abovesaid judgment read as under:-
“72. Almost all individuals carry a mobile phone compatible for
videography these days. From the above cases, it is clear that it is open for
the prosecution to furnish reasons to explain and justify the absence of
videography and photography in a case. Mere absence of videography and
photography of the recovery does not nullify the case of the prosecution,
however, the same can in some circumstances be sufficient to create a doubt
as to the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
73. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments has held that the more
severe the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to ensure that all the
safeguards provided in the statute are scrupulously followed.
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20
74. While a little play in the joint has to be afforded to investigating agencies
to enable them to discharge their duties, the authorities also have to be held
accountable to prevent abuse of law. In cases where the factum of recovery
of the contraband is supported only by official witnesses, lack of
videography and photography, especially in the absence of independent
witnesses, casts a doubt on the recovery of the contraband, unless the same
is justified by cogent reasons.
75. As already noted above, in the case of absence of independent witnesses,
it is to be seen whether any prejudice is caused to the accused person and
testimonies of the police officials can be believed even without
corroboration if the same is found to be credible. This Court is of the
opinion that the same rationale would extend to cases where there is no
photography and videography as well, specially when the same has been
deliberated and commented upon by Courts on numerious occasions.
76. The sufficiency of the explanation, if any, is to be tested during the
course of the trial after the prosecution has led its evidence, however, in the
opinion of this Court, the absence of any independent evidence to support
recovery (presence of public witnesses, videography or photography) is a
relevant factor while considering applications for grant of bail as the same
casts a shadow over the very fulcrum of the case.”
19. The abovesaid aspect was further echoed by Coordinate Bench in
Sunday Okeke Ugwuoke v. State of NCT of Delhi (in Bail Appln.
No.1939/2025; DoD 02.12.2025), which read as under:-
“16. It is the case of the prosecution that the said raid was conducted during
daylight hours i.e. around 05.00 – 05.30 P.M. in a public place. Despite this,
no public witnesses have joined nor any cogent explanation has been offered
for the same. While the absence of independent witnesses may not be fatal to
the case of the prosecution, it impacts the transparency and reliability of the
search and seizure process, particularly at the stage of bail, where the Court
must assess whether a prima facie case has been made out against the
accused. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Beneth Chukuwuddi (supra) as well as
Bantu v. State Government of NCT of Delhi 5 . Likewise, Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P.6 has also emphasised that the video
or photographic documentation of a crime scene, serves as a critical
safeguard, ensuring transparency and accountability in the handling of
evidence, which is evidently missing in the present case. The following
observations from Beneth Chukuwuddi (supra) could beneficially be
referred to:
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20
“8. It is to be noted that the raiding party, acting on information
received on 10th March, 2023, had sufficient time to secure
independent witnesses before conducting the raid. However, no
reasonable explanation has been provided for this omission. Since the
alleged recovery took place in a public area, where securing
independent witnesses would not have posed any practical difficulty,
this lapse reflects a lack of diligence on the part of the investigating
agency. While the absence of independent witnesses may not be fatal
to the prosecution’s case per se, it does impact the transparency and
reliability of the search and seizure process, particularly at the bail
stage, where the Court must assess whether a prima facie case has
been made out against the accused.
9. This Court in Bantu v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, 7 took
note of the frequent and mechanical explanations offered for the
non-joinder of independent witnesses in cases involving the seizure of
contraband. It was observed that the absence of independent
witnesses, especially in crowded public places, warrants careful
judicial scrutiny. This practice undermines the transparency of the
seizure procedure and weakens the evidentiary value of the recovery.
In the present case, the failure to associate independent witnesses,
despite the raid occurring in a public location, indicates a lapse in the
search process. While such lapses do not, by themselves, render the
recovery invalid, they diminish the evidentiary value of the seizure
and introduce reasonable doubt about the integrity of the
prosecution’s case, which becomes particularly relevant in cases
under the NDPS Act, where strict compliance with procedural
safeguards is imperative given the severe consequences involved.
xxx xxx xxx
11. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P.8
emphasised that the video or photographic documentation of a crime
scene, serves as a critical safeguard, ensuring transparency and
accountability in the handling of evidence. Further, in Bantu, this
Court observed that in instances where videography or photography
has not been undertaken, the prosecution can provide clear and valid
justifications for such omissions. These judicial observations were
made even prior to the enactment of the mandatory videography and
photography requirements under the BNSS, illustrating that the Court
has recognized the vital role of such documentation in ensuring the
fair administration of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
19. Additionally, it is pertinent to note that the Applicant has been in
custody for 2 years. Although the chargesheet has been filed, the
charges are yet to be framed and there is no indication that the trial
will conclude in the foreseeable future. 20. The right to life and
personal liberty, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20
India, 1950, cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in
the judicial process. The prolonged incarceration undermines the
fundamental right to personal liberty. The extended period of custody,
combined with the delay in trial, justifies the Applicant’s plea for
conditional liberty through the grant of bail, thereby balancing the
rights of the accused with the requirements of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Learned counsel for applicant states that he is conscious about the
recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. State of Punjab vs.
Sukhwinder Singh @Gora: 2026 INC 411 but supplements even in that case,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that both such rights i.e. Section 37 of
NDPS Act and the one contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
have to be read harmoniously and not in juxtaposition. He contends that while
referring to the abovesaid judgment, Coordinate Bench of this Court i.e.
Arinze Hillary Ali v. State of NCT of Delhi (In Bail Appln. No.1022/2026;
DoD 27.04.2026), observed that all the factors must be considered holistically
and while, applying the test under Section 37 of NDPS Act, it is to be ensured
that the constitutional guarantee enriched under Article 21 of the Constitution
is not eclipsed.
21. It will, however, not be appropriate for this Court to make any firm
observation with respect to the fact whether the accused is, in fact, a victim or
was a wiling carrier. The abovesaid aspect would become clearer only when
there is a comprehensive trial.
22. Fact, however, remains that at the time of seizure, taking place at a
public place like Airport, respondent should have ensured that seizure
proceedings were duly photographed and videographed. Such omission
cannot be brushed aside casually.
23. Moreover, this Court also cannot disregard the fact that applicant is a
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20
lady, with no prior antecedents.
24. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, this Court is of the view
that applicant has been able to make out a case for releasing her on bail. She is
accordingly admitted bail on her furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR
50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:-
a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
b) The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the
permission of the Trial Court;
c) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;
d) The applicant shall provide the address where she would be residing
after her release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;
e) The applicant shall, upon her release, give her mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep her mobile phone switched on at all
times.
25. The application is disposed of.
26. Pending application also stands disposed of.
27. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the learned Trial Court and
Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
MANOJ JAIN, J
APRIL 30, 2026/ss/sa
BAIL APPLN. 1071/2026 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 22:24:20