23 July 2025 Legal Updates

MERELY RECEIVING A PACKAGE WITHOUT BEING AWARE OF ILLICIT CONTENTS NOT 'POSSESSION' UNDER NDPS ACT: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Saneesh Soman v. Narcotics Control Bureau

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 21, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

Facts of the Case

The NCB conducted a multi-state drug trafficking investigation that began with the arrest of Gajender Singh in Delhi, who was found with 15 LSD blots. This led to a chain of arrests including Shainu Hatwar and Sarabjeet Singh in Jaipur, from whose residence 9,006 LSD blots were recovered. Based on information about drug consignments, NCB intercepted various parcels, including one destined for Kottayam, Kerala.

The petitioner, Saneesh Soman, was arrested when he came to collect a parcel containing 100 LSD blots (3.5 grams) from a DTDC courier office in Kottayam. He claimed he was collecting it for his neighbor "Punan C.M. @ Robin" and had no knowledge of its contents.

Petitioner's Arguments for Bail

• Lack of conscious possession - claimed he was unaware of parcel contents
• Procedural lapses - NCB failed to investigate the actual sender/recipient
• No direct evidence - no calls, messages, or financial transactions linking him to co-accused
• Mistaken identity - the phone number allegedly used to inquire about the parcel belonged to DTDC office itself
• No recovery from confession - his Section 67 statement led to no further discoveries
• Weight discrepancy - contradiction between 3.5 grams and 2.5 grams in court records
• Prolonged detention - over 18 months in custody without trial commencement

NCB's Opposition

• Commercial quantity - 3.5 grams LSD exceeds 0.1 gram threshold, attracting Section 37 restrictions
• Conscious possession established - petitioner actively pursued the parcel
• Statutory presumption - Section 54 presumption applies
• Part of larger conspiracy - connected to broader drug trafficking network

Court's Analysis and Decision

The court granted bail after finding both conditions of Section 37(1)(b) satisfied:

First Condition -

Reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty:

• Distinguished petitioner's case from co-accused who had drugs recovered from their premises
• Found discrepancy in phone number evidence (belonged to DTDC office, not petitioner)
• Noted absence of corroborative evidence like CDRs, financial transactions, or digital communications
• Emphasized that confession under Section 67 without corroboration has limited probative value
• Applied principle of "conscious possession" requiring both knowledge and intent to control

Second Condition -

Not likely to commit offense on bail:

• No prior criminal record
• Cooperated with investigation (provided phone and password)
• Satisfactory jail conduct over 2 years of custody
• No indication of flight risk

Important Legal Principles

• Conscious Possession under NDPS Act requires both physical custody and knowledge/intent to control the contraband
• Section 67 confessions need corroboration and cannot be sole basis for conviction
• Commercial quantity threshold for LSD is 0.1 gram
• Twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) must both be satisfied for bail in NDPS cases
• Benefit of doubt should favor accused at bail stage when evidence is ambiguous

Bail Conditions

• Personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety
• No tampering with evidence or witnesses
• No foreign travel without court permission
• Regular court appearances
• Inform authorities of residential address changes
• Keep mobile phone active for official contact

NO ARREST IN 498A FIRS FOR 2 MONTHS; REFER CASES TO FAMILY WELFARE COMMITTEES: SUPREME COURT ENDORSES ALLAHABAD HC GUIDELINE

(a) Case Title:

• Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 22, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

This case involved a matrimonial dispute between Shivangi Bansal (an IPS officer) and Sahib Bansal who married in 2015 and had a daughter born in 2016. They separated in 2018 due to matrimonial discord, leading to extensive litigation between both parties and their families.

Key Legal Issues

• Transfer of Cases: Both parties sought transfer of various criminal and civil cases between Delhi and Uttar Pradesh courts
• Multiple Litigation: The parties had filed numerous cases against each other including dowry harassment (Section 498A IPC), domestic violence, criminal breach of trust, maintenance, and divorce proceedings
• Child Custody: Custody arrangements for their minor daughter

Supreme Court's Decision

The Court facilitated an amicable settlement with the following key provisions:

• Child Custody: Mother (Shivangi) granted custody; father gets supervised visitation rights on first Sunday of every month and half of vacation periods
• Financial Settlement: Wife waived all claims to alimony and maintenance. Existing maintenance order of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month quashed. Wife to bear all expenses of the daughter.
• Property Transfer: Wife's mother to transfer specific agricultural land in Aligarh to husband as gift deed
• Quashing of All Cases: All pending criminal and civil cases between parties and their families were quashed
• Public Apology: Wife ordered to publish unconditional apology in national newspapers and social media platforms
• Non-Interference Clause: Both parties prohibited from interfering in each other's professional and personal lives
• Police Protection: Directed for husband and his family

Final Order

The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, ending the protracted legal battle.