A special court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in Mumbai has declared the arrest of a suspect in a Rs 2 crore hashish seizure case illegal, citing a violation of the statutory requirement to produce the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours of interception. The court ordered his immediate release.
Case Background
The customs' special intelligence and investigation branch (SIIB) intercepted a package meant for delivery and discovered approximately 1.6 kilograms of hashish concealed inside plastic-wrapped soap boxes. The package was addressed to a residence in Bhoiwada, Dadar. To apprehend the recipient, the SIIB laid a trap at the Dadar address. However, when the postman arrived, no one was present to receive the package. Neighbors informed authorities that the house had been locked for years. The postman attempted to contact the number on the package but failed to reach the correct recipient.
Attempt to Claim Package
The following day, the post office informed customs officials that a man named Shahrukh Shaikh had tried to claim the package by submitting his Aadhaar card. However, there were discrepancies in both the name and address. The consignment was actually addressed to one Hitendra Jain. SIIB officials took Shaikh into custody and recorded his statement. Shaikh claimed that a friend from Thailand had asked him to pick up the package.
Legal Proceedings
Shaikh, who was booked under the NDPS Act, was produced in court on Wednesday. Special public prosecutor R K Pathak sought his judicial custody. However, Shaikh's lawyer, Arun Gupta, opposed the request, arguing that Shaikh was formally arrested nearly 12 hours after being intercepted at his residence in the morning and was not produced before the court within 24 hours of interception, thereby violating Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Court's Observation
Additional chief metropolitan magistrate S K Fokmare observed that there was nothing on record to show that the investigating agency required any journey time to be excluded while computing the statutory period. Rejecting the prosecution's explanation that Shaikh was interrogated and medically examined during the intervening period, the court held that such reasons could not be excluded while calculating the 24-hour period. The court noted, "It was for the prosecution/SIIB to produce the accused within 24 hours from his initial interception at 9.20am or at the most, from the time while leaving the house of the accused, that is, 10.30am."
Conclusion
The court concluded that the arrest of the accused was illegal and directed the investigating officer to release him forthwith. The order emphasized that the liberty of the individual had been curtailed from the time he was intercepted at his residence, and the failure to produce him within the mandated timeframe rendered the arrest unlawful.
