Shadrach Nwogbo Vs Customs (Delhi High Court)
Summary : The Delhi High Court, in Shadrach Nwogbo Vs Customs, granted regular bail to a foreign national accused of smuggling approximately 1,660 grams of cocaine, holding that the constitutional requirement of producing a detained person before a Magistrate within 24 hours cannot be circumvented by postponing formal arrest. Justice Sachin Datta held that the period prescribed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India begins when a person’s liberty is effectively curtailed, rather than when the investigating agency formally records an arrest. The Court also clarified that Section 103(8) of the Customs Act, 1962, which permits certain medical procedures without obtaining a Magistrate’s prior order, does not override the independent constitutional safeguard against prolonged detention without judicial oversight.
The petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, from Dubai on 7 September 2024. Acting on specific intelligence, Customs officers intercepted him and conducted baggage screening and a metal-detector examination, neither of which revealed suspicious material. However, while in the Customs preventive room, the petitioner expelled 28 capsules. According to the Panchnama, he admitted having swallowed additional capsules containing narcotic substances and consented to medical procedures for their removal. He was subsequently taken to Safdarjung Hospital, where another 56 capsules were recovered on 8 and 9 September 2024. The 84 capsules contained approximately 1,660 grams of white powder that tested positive for cocaine. Although the petitioner was under Customs control from 7 September 2024, he was formally arrested only on 11 September 2024 at approximately 4 p.m. and produced before the Trial Court that evening.
The Special Judge had rejected the petitioner’s bail application on 9 March 2026, reasoning that Section 103(8) of the Customs Act permitted the medical procedures without prior judicial authorisation where the person voluntarily admitted concealing contraband and submitted to its removal. The Special Judge also found no illegal detention, treating the relevant period as commencing after the hospital-related proceedings rather than from the original interception. Before the High Court, the petitioner relied on Kitoko Ngiembo Alain Vs Customs, 2026:DHC:1338, and Habib Bedru Omer Vs Customs, 2025:DHC:4870, to contend that Customs could not continue holding a person without judicial authorisation after the offence had already become apparent. The Customs Department maintained that the petitioner had consented to medical treatment, that hospitalisation was necessary for his safety, and that the precise nature of the contraband had to be established before arrest.
Regarding Section 103(8) of the Customs Act, the High Court distinguished between the statutory procedure for recovering goods concealed inside a person’s body and the constitutional obligation to produce a detained person before a Magistrate. Section 103(8) dispenses with the requirement of obtaining a Magistrate’s order for specified screening or medical procedures where the person voluntarily admits concealment and submits to appropriate action. It does not authorise Customs officers to keep that person in custody beyond the limits imposed by Article 22(2). Consent to medical procedures therefore could not be treated as a waiver of constitutional protection.
Cases Discussed
- Kitoko Ngiembo Alain Vs Customs (Delhi HC) 2026:DHC:1338
- Habib Bedru Omer Vs Customs (Delhi HC) 2025:DHC:4870
- Sri Sujit Das and Others Etc. Vs Union of India (SC) 2026 INSC 1195; 05/11/2026
- Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (SC) (2023) 18 SCC 166
- Union of India Vs Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara (SC) 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1585
- John Seruwu Vs Customs (Delhi HC) 2026:DHC:9779
