Drugs recovered from couple’s bedroom can’t be attributed to husband alone when both husband and wife consume narcotics: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that recovery of drugs from the bedroom of a couple in a residential premises is attributable to both the husband and the wife if both are consumers of narcotic substances [Dixita Golwala vs Narcotics Control Bureau]..Justice Jasmeet Singh said that recovery of Ganja from the bedroom may have been at the instance of the husband but it was recovered from the couple’s joint space and hence liability cannot be fastened on husband alone.The single-judge was hearing a bail plea filed by the wife (applicant/ accused) in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against both the husband and the wife."Both, the applicant and husband/co-accused, Krunal Golwala are, admittedly, consumers of narcotic substances. 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 relates to an alleged drug syndicate operating through Telegram messaging app. In 2021, drugs were recovered at the couple’s residence and the office premises of the husband..The counsel representing the woman argued that the recovery of Ganja weighing 1 kg 30 grams was at the instance of her husband and not her. However, the Court observed that it had nowhere been argued that the husband and wife 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,” it added..The Court also observed that since both the husband and wife are admittedly consumers of narcotic substances and as the couple share a special relationship, it can be inferred that both were aware of the contraband in their bedroom at their residence and were in conscious possession of the same.“I am unable to agree with the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. The recovery of ganja from the bedroom (i.e. residential premises) of the applicant is attributable to both, the applicant and the husband/co-accused, Krunal Golwala,” the Court said.However, since the ganja recovered in the case fell under intermediate quantity, the Court said the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable.With respect to the recovery of commercial quantity at her husband’s office, the Court said the same is separated by a staircase as the husband and wife have their offices on separate floors. Accordingly, it opined that the office premises is not a shared space of the couple and the recovery from there cannot be attributed to the wife..On the mobile chats of the woman, the Court said she has a potential to deal in commercial quantity but “potential” alone would not come within the purview of Section 37 of NDPS Act.“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.Whether she is a drug-dealer or not can only be ascertained during the trial, the Court added.Considering the fact that the woman is not a flight risk and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the Court granted bail to her..Advocates Faraz Maqbool, Vismita Diwan and Sana Juneja represented Dixita Golwala.Senior Standing Counsel Subhash Bansal with Advocate Raghav Bansal appeared for the Narcotics Control Bureau[Read Order]