The Burgas Court of Appeal did not grant the request for a lighter pre-trial detention measure for the accused of possession of drugs for distribution and possession of precursors for the production of methamphetamine. The appellate instance confirmed the ruling of the Sliven District Court, which imposed the initial procedural coercion measure "detention in custody" on D.N.
The woman is accused of having, on 03.12.2025 in the city of Sliven, without proper permission under the Law on Narcotic Substances and Precursors, possessed for the purpose of distribution high-risk narcotic substances (approximately 1 kg of marijuana and approximately 5 grams of methamphetamine), as well as of possessing, without proper permission, precursors and materials for the production of high-risk narcotic substances (methamphetamine). The crimes under Art. 354a para. 1 sentence 1 of the Penal Code and under Art. 354a para. 2 of the Penal Code are punishable by imprisonment and are considered "serious crimes" within the meaning of the Penal Code, as the prescribed punishment is "imprisonment" for more than 5 years and a fine.
The appellate instance agrees with the findings of the Sliven District Court that from the collected numerous oral and material evidence, a reasonable assumption can be made that D.N. committed the crimes with which she is accused, as well as that there is a real danger of her absconding. The accused has a previous suspended sentence for a crime related to the possession of high-risk narcotic substances, and the probationary period expired days before the commission of the acts in the present pre-trial proceedings. The severity of the prescribed penalties in the event of conviction may certainly be a motive for concealment and obstruction of the investigation, especially in its initial stage, when the risk of concealment or the commission of a new crime is highest, note the appellate judges.
The appellate instance accepts that at this stage of the investigation, the pre-trial detention measure "detention in custody" is the only effective one and would create the necessary guarantees for the personal participation of D.N. in the criminal proceedings and its timely completion.
The application of a lighter pre-trial detention measure, even house arrest, according to the appellate panel, would not contribute to the categorical elimination of the danger of absconding and the commission of a crime, which is why any other measure of procedural coercion, apart from detention in custody, is inappropriate for the accused.
The ruling of the Burgas Court of Appeal is final.