-
by sayum
20 February 2026 10:40 AM
“Section 67 of NDPS, Confession Without Independent Evidence Is Inadequate To Deny Bail, Especially Where Conscious Possession Is Not Established”: In a significant judgment Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused arrested under the NDPS Act, while making critical observations on the absence of “conscious possession” and the insufficiency of a Section 67 confession in securing continued incarceration. Justice Sanjeev Narula, rejecting the Narcotics Control Bureau’s opposition, observed,
“Conscious possession under the NDPS Act necessitates proof of both knowledge and dominion over the contraband; mere physical collection of a parcel without knowledge of its contents cannot, by itself, establish culpability.”
The Court underscored that in the absence of incriminating call records, digital footprints, or financial transactions, the presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the NDPS Act stood rebutted.
The case arose from the alleged seizure of 100 LSD blots weighing approximately 3.5 grams from a parcel collected by the petitioner, Saneesh Soman, from a DTDC courier office in Kottayam. The NCB, based on multiple interlinked seizures and Section 67 statements of co-accused, claimed Soman was part of a larger drug syndicate. However, the petitioner consistently argued that he was merely asked by a neighbour to collect the parcel, had no knowledge of its contents, and was not the named consignee or sender.
Justice Narula categorically held that: “Mere custody or physical possession without knowledge is insufficient to establish conscious possession under the NDPS Act. The statute requires both knowledge of the presence of narcotic substances and an element of control over them.” [Para 11]
Reiterating the settled principle, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222 and held,
“Conscious possession entails not merely physical custody but requires animus possidendi—intentional control with knowledge of the contraband. This critical element is conspicuously absent in the present case.” [Para 11]
Examining the prosecution’s case, the Court found multiple gaps:
“The applicant was neither the consignee nor was the parcel addressed to his residence. His name, phone number, and address do not appear on the parcel. The prosecution’s reliance on telephonic contact with the courier office is unfounded, especially when records reveal the alleged phone number was that of the courier office itself.” [Para 7]
Justice Narula further emphasized:
“No incriminating articles were recovered from the applicant’s person or residence, and no call detail records, financial transactions, or digital links tie him to the broader drug syndicate.” [Para 13]
Section 67 Confession Cannot Override Lack of Conscious Possession:
The Court gave particular weight to the lack of corroborative evidence to support the petitioner’s alleged Section 67 confession, observing,
“It is well established that a confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, absent corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a conviction or justify prolonged pre-trial detention. In this case, there was no recovery pursuant to such confession nor any external material corroborating the petitioner’s complicity.” [Para 10]
Justice Narula, referencing Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, reiterated the inadmissibility of Section 67 confessions when uncorroborated.
Granting bail, the Court concluded: “In the absence of cogent evidence establishing conscious possession, and where the only substantive material is an uncorroborated confession, the twin conditions of Section 37 stand satisfied. There exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, and there is no apprehension of reoffending.” [Paras 13, 14]
The High Court’s judgment provides a critical precedent reaffirming that the concept of conscious possession under NDPS cannot be diluted, and uncorroborated confessions cannot substitute for robust prosecutorial evidence.
Date of Decision: 21st July 2025
