According to a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in Dixita Golwala v. Narcotics Control Bureau, if both spouses use drugs, then the narcotics found in the couple’s bedroom in a residential building belong to both of them.
According to Justice Jasmeet Singh, while the husband may have requested that the marijuana be removed from the bedroom, it was nonetheless removed from the couple’s shared environment, therefore the husband cannot be held solely responsible.
A case against both the husband and wife was being heard by the single judge about a bail request made by the wife (applicant/accused) in accordance with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
“It is true that both the applicant and her spouse and co-defendant, Krunal Golwala, are drug users.
The Court said that since the applicant and her husband/co-accused, Krunal Golwala, had a particular connection and that it is trite to conclude that both parties were aware of the contraband held in their bedroom at their home and were in conscious possession of it.
The lawsuit concerns a purported narcotics cartel that allegedly used the Telegram communications service. In 2021, narcotics were found in the couple’s home as well as the husband’s workplace.
The woman’s attorney contended that her husband, not she, was the one who requested the recovery of ganja weighing 1 kilogram 30 grams. The Court did note that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the husband and wife were separated or had a tense relationship.
The document said, “To say that the recovery of 1.03 kg made from the bedroom cannot be linked to the Applicant would be an incorrect assumption. The recovery was also not from a person but from a shared area.
The court also said that it may be assumed that both the wife and husband were aware of the contraband in their bedroom at their home and were consciously in possession of it since both are confessed drug users and because the pair has a particular bond.
“I am unable to concur with the learned applicant’s counsel’s position on this issue. The court ruled that both the applicant and the husband/co-accused, Krunal Golwala, are responsible for the ganja found in the applicant’s bedroom (i.e., residence).
The Court ruled that the strict bail requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply since the amount of marijuana found in the case came into the category of intermediate quantity.
Regarding the recovery of commercial quantities at her husband’s workplace, the Court noted that the two were separated by a staircase since the husband and wife had workplaces on different levels.
It concluded that the office space is not a joint area of the pair and therefore the wife cannot be held responsible for the recovery.
Regarding the woman’s cellphone communications, the court said that while “potential” by itself would not fall within the jurisdiction of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, she has the ability to sell in commercial quantities.
The discussions, in the court’s opinion, “show that the Applicant is a small-time consumer, sharing hash and weed with two people as of today.”
Only the results of the trial will reveal whether she is or is not a drug dealer, the Court continued.
The lady was granted bail by the court due to the fact that she poses no flight risk and there are no concerns about her tampering with witnesses or evidence.
Dixita Golwala was represented by lawyers Sana Juneja, Vismita Diwan, and Faraz Maqbool.
The Narcotics Control Bureau was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Subhash Bansal and Attorney Raghav Bansal.
Written by Anamika Parasher of Jagran Lakecity University (LLB 5th semester ) an Intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments