$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010111302026 + BAIL APPLN. 1165/2026 BABRA WANGARI KARANJA .....Applicant Through: Mr. Shayam Sundar Aggarwal, Advocate. versus CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneett Singhal, SPP for the Customs with Ms. Sarika Sehgal, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The present is the fourth bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in File No. VIII(AP)(10)/P&I/4120-A/Arrival/2023, registered for offences under sections 8, 21, 23 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the applicant, on arrival from Nairobi at IGI Airport, New Delhi on 29.04.2023, was intercepted after crossing the green channel. Upon search of her trolley bag, four pouches containing an off-white substance weighing 2.511 kg, suspected to be heroin, were allegedly recovered from a concealed cavity of 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 17/08/2026 at 10:50:51 the bag. The Panchnama proceedings commenced at 07:00 hours and concluded at 12:05 hours on 29.04.2023. Thereafter, a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was issued to the applicant and her statement was recorded. The applicant was formally arrested vide Arrest Memo dated 29.04.2023. Her medical examination was conducted on 30.04.2023, and she was thereafter produced before the Magistrate on the same day. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has raised the solitary contention that there is a violation of Article 21 and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the applicant was not produced before the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours of her interception, and that the period of custody ought to be reckoned not from the time of her formal arrest, but from 07:00 hours on 29.04.2023, when the Panchnama proceedings commenced and her liberty first stood curtailed. 4. This very contention was raised before, and considered by, the learned Trial Court, and stands rejected by way of a categorical finding recorded in the order dated 20.02.2026, which reads as under: “In the present case, the Panchnama proceedings concluded at 12:05 hours on 29.04.2023 and presuming the same to be the time when the accused was detained by customs officers, she was produced before the Ld. Court on 30.04.2023 after 11 AM which is not beyond 24 hours of such detention. It can, therefore, be concluded that there was no illegal detention of the accused in the present case and hence the accused is not entitled to the relief of bail merely on the ground of illegal detention.” 5. The said finding was reiterated by the Trial Court in the subsequent order dated 14.03.2026, whereby it was specifically observed that no new ground had been raised warranting a reconsideration of the issue already decided, and that any grievance in that regard lay only before a higher forum. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:50:51 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance, inter alia, on Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan1, to contend that the applicant’s liberty stood curtailed the moment she was intercepted, and that such curtailment is to be equated with arrest for the purpose of computing the period under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This very decision, however, draws the distinction which defeats the applicant's own contention. The Supreme Court, while considering the scope of the expression ‘custody’, held as under:- “It will be appropriate, at this stage, to note that in every arrest, there is custody but not vice versa and that both the words ‘custody’ and ‘arrest’ are not synonymous terms. Though ‘custody’ may amount to an arrest in certain circumstances but not under all circumstances.” 7. Applying the said distinction, the interception of the applicant and the search and seizure proceedings conducted between 07:00 hours and 12:05 hours on 29.04.2023 constituted a preliminary inquiry preceding arrest, and cannot be equated with formal arrest, which took place only at 13:00 hours on 29.04.2023 vide the Arrest Memo. It is from this point that the period under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be computed, and reckoned thus, the production of the applicant before the Magistrate on 30.04.2023, as found by the Trial Court, does not exceed the mandatory period of 24 hours. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, including Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma2, therefore, will have no bearing under the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the said decisions turned upon custody that remained continuous and unauthorised for several 1 (1994) 3 SCC 440. 2 2025 INSC 141. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:50:51 days without any judicial sanction. 8. Even otherwise, the allegations against the applicant are with respect to conscious possession of 2.511 kg of heroin, which admittedly constitutes commercial quantity. The rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 will, therefore, have full force under the facts of the present case, and the maximum punishment prescribed extends up to 20 years. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh3, the Supreme Court held as under: “To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are satisfied.” 9. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 13, 2026/P 3 (1999) 9 SCC 429. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:50:51