The Delhi High Court has ruled that the responsibility for drugs found in a couple's bedroom cannot be solely attributed to the husband when both partners are known consumers of narcotics. The court asserted that since the husband and wife both acknowledge using narcotic substances and share a unique bond as a couple, it is reasonable to deduce that both were conscious of the illicit substances in their shared bedroom.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over a bail application by the wife (the accused), in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against both spouses, emphasized that the recovery of Ganja from the bedroom might have been initiated by the husband but was retrieved from the shared space of the couple. Therefore, the husband alone cannot be held liable.

The case pertains to an alleged drug syndicate using the Telegram messaging app. In 2021, drugs were seized from both the couple’s home and the husband's office premises.

The wife's lawyer contended that the 1.03 kg Ganja was connected to the husband, not her. Nonetheless, the court observed that there was no evidence of them residing separately or having a strained relationship.

Moreover, the court noted that the drugs were found in a common area and not on an individual. Hence, the assertion that the drugs' recovery cannot be attributed to the wife was deemed incorrect.

Given that both the husband and wife openly admit to consuming narcotics and share a unique relationship, the court inferred that both knew about and consciously possessed the drugs in their home.

The court dismissed the argument made by the applicant's counsel, emphasizing that the Ganja recovered from their bedroom should be associated with both the applicant and the husband.

However, as the recovered Ganja fell under an intermediate quantity, the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.

Regarding the substantial drug quantity discovered at the husband's office, the court noted that the office was separated by a staircase, with each spouse having their own floor. Therefore, the office was not a shared space, and the wife could not be held responsible for the recovery there.

The court also addressed mobile chats involving the woman, stating that she had the potential to deal in larger quantities. However, the court pointed out that "potential" alone did not fall within the ambit of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

In the court's view, the chats indicated that the woman was a minor consumer, sharing hash and weed with two people.

Whether she is a drug dealer would be determined during the trial, the court stated.

Considering the woman posed no flight risk and had no history of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the court granted her bail.

Advocates Faraz Maqbool, Vismita Diwan, and Sana Juneja represented Dixita Golwala, while Senior Standing Counsel Subhash Bansal with Advocate Raghav Bansal appeared for the Narcotics Control Bureau.