The Delhi High Court recently addressed a significant legal matter pertaining to the responsibility of individuals in cases where drugs are discovered in their shared living spaces.
The court was examining a bail plea filed by a woman, one of the accused, in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) against both the husband and the wife.
The court acknowledged that if drugs are found in the bedroom of a couple residing together, both individuals can be held responsible, particularly if they are known consumers of narcotics.
In the specific case under scrutiny, both the husband and wife were accused by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), raising questions about their individual liability.
Shared Living Space and Liability
Justice Jasmeet Singh highlighted that even if the recovery of drugs might have been initiated by the husband, the mere fact that the substances were discovered in their common living area prevents the entire blame from falling solely on the husband.
The court emphasized that the couple, being consumers of narcotic substances and having a marital relationship, presumably had awareness of the contraband in their shared bedroom, implying a conscious possession.
Marital Relationship and Awareness
Addressing the unique dynamics of the husband-wife relationship, the court deemed it reasonable to infer that both parties were conscious of the illegal substances present in their bedroom.
The court explicitly stated, "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."
Involvement of Telegram Drug Syndicate
The case revolves around an alleged drug syndicate that operated through the Telegram messaging app.
Drugs were reportedly found not only at the couple's residence but also at the husband's office premises, raising complexities in attributing responsibility.
Differentiating Office Premises from Residence
While the recovery of drugs from the couple's home raised questions about shared liability, the court clarified that the drugs recovered from the husband's office premises could not be attributed to the wife.
This distinction was based on the physical separation of the office space from the couple's joint living area.
Bail Decision and Future Trial
Considering various factors including the nature of the recovered drugs, the court decided that the stringent bail conditions specified in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable due to the intermediate quantity of the substance recovered.
The court's decision to grant bail to the woman was also influenced by factors such as lack of flight risk, absence of evidence tampering, and no concerns of influencing witnesses.
The court underlined that the determination of whether the woman was involved in drug dealing or not would be addressed during the trial proceedings.
The decision emphasizes the importance of due legal process in establishing guilt or innocence.
.png)
