Recovery Of Drugs From Couple’s Bedroom Is Attributable To Both Husband And Wife: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that recovery of drugs from the bedroom of a couple is attributable to both the husband and wife.

The court made the observation in a bail plea filed by the woman who was arrested in 2021 after drugs were recovered from the couple’s bedroom at their residence and from the husband’s office premises.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that bedroom is a private space shared by a husband and wife. Therefore, even if ganja is recovered from the couple’s bedroom at the instance of the husband, the recovery was made from the joint space of the couple and thus, it cannot be attributable to the husband alone.

Noting that both the woman and her husband/co-accused were, admittedly, consumers of narcotic substances, the court said, “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.”

However, with respect to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the husband’s office premises, the court said the same cannot be attributable to the wife since the office premises was not a shared space and the couple’s offices were separated by a staircase. The court concluded that since the contraband was recovered at the instance of the husband from his exclusive office space, he alone was liable for the same.

It was the case of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) that the couple were a part of the syndicate involved in drug trafficking through the social media platform Telegram. The woman’s bail application was dismissed by the trial court in 2022.

In the bail application filed before the Delhi High Court, NCB argued that since the woman was involved in illicit drug-trafficking of commercial quantity of contraband, the embargo under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for grant of bail was applicable.

Per contra, the counsel for the woman claimed that recovery of ganja from the couple’s bedroom was at the instance of the woman’s husband and co-accused, and not at the instance of the woman. Thus, the recovery cannot be attributable to the latter.

Dismissing the plea, the court said that recovery made from the couple’s bedroom (i.e., residential premises) is attributable to both the woman and her husband.

“It is pertinent to note that bedroom is a private space shared by a husband and wife. 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,” said the court.

The court added: “The bedroom being a shared private space of the Applicant and her husband where the Applicant can exercise control and dominion leads to the conclusion that the recovery from the residence is at the instance of both, the Applicant as well as husband/co-accused, Krunal Golwala.”

However, the court said that recovery of ganja from the couple’s bedroom, weighing 1 kg 30 grams, was an intermediate quantity and not a commercial quantity and thus, it did not attract the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

With respect to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the husband’s exclusive office space, the court said the same cannot be attributable to the wife.

“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 court remarked.

In support of the plea that the woman was a drug-dealer involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic substances, NCB relied on the forensic report of her mobile chats which contained conversations about weed and hashish.

However, the court found that the chats did not show dealing of commercial quantity of contraband. Further, no recoveries had been made pursuant to the said chats.

“The chats seem to show that there is potential for the Applicant to deal in commercial quantity of contraband, however, “potential” alone would not come within the purview of section 37 NDPS Act,” the court added.

“In my view, as of today, the chats show that the Applicant is a small-time consumer, sharing hash and weed with two people,” the court said, adding that whether the woman is a drug-dealer or not and the persons with whom her chats have been found are clients, can only be ascertained after trial.

The court noted that the woman has been in custody as an under-trial prisoner for almost 23 months, and several other co-accused persons have been released on regular bail despite their involvement and recovery made at their instance. It further noted that the investigation was complete and the trial court would take considerable time in framing the charges. In view of the same, the court allowed her bail plea.

Case Title: DIXITA GOLWALA vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 773

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Faraz Maqbool, Ms Vismita Diwan and Ms Sana Juneja, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Subhash Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel for NCB with Mr Raghav Bansal, Adv

Click Here To Read/Download Order