Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004857-004857 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 20193/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA (concurring) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on bail applications under the NDPS Act |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms statutory embargo and twin-condition requirement under Section 37(1)(b), NDPS Act |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; bail under NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court can grant bail in commercial-quantity NDPS seizures without recording satisfaction on (i) reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty, and (ii) no likelihood of committing offence while on bail under Section 37? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, Section 37(1)(b) imposes a statutory embargo on bail unless the court records, with reasons, satisfaction on two conditions: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and no likelihood of reoffending. A mere finding of custodial delay or absence of antecedents cannot substitute for this requirement. The High Court’s orders were set aside for failure to address prosecution’s material on the accused’s operational control and prior seizure involvement. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration in light of the statutory parameters. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 05–07 October 2022, DRI seized ~50.232 kg cocaine concealed in a refrigerated import container of pears under a company directed by the respondent. He was arrested in October 2022 after statements under Section 67 NDPS Act allegedly admitted his role in ordering, clearing, and supervising the consignment, tied to an earlier seizure (198.1 kg methamphetamine + 9.035 kg cocaine). Bail was denied by the Special Court; the Bombay High Court granted bail on grounds of no knowledge, no antecedents, prolonged custody, and delay in trial. The Union appealed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | High Court of Judicature at Bombay and all subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Special Courts on NDPS matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirmation that Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act requires recording, with reasons, satisfaction on two conditions before granting bail in commercial-quantity cases.
- High Courts must address prosecution’s material on accused’s operational control, coordination and antecedent seizures when adjudicating bail.
- Custodial delay and health considerations alone cannot override the statutory embargo under the NDPS Act.
- Bail orders in NDPS cases must harmonize the rigour of Section 37 with Article 21 rights, without pre-judging merits.
- Supreme Court remitted the case for fresh statutory compliance, underscoring careful appraisal of rival contentions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Bombay High Court granted bail on four planks: alleged absence of knowledge, no antecedents, custodial delay, and trial not likely to conclude soon; it found reasonable grounds to believe the accused not guilty.
- Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act imposes a specific embargo on bail for commercial quantity offences, mandating recorded satisfaction on (i) non-guilt and (ii) no likelihood of committing offence while on bail.
- The High Court did not consider key prosecution assertions: statements under Section 67 NDPS Act regarding ordering, import coordination and presence at opening, nor prior seizure involvement.
- Rendering a conclusion on non-guilt and future risk without addressing these materials risks usurping trial-court functions and violates statutory mandate.
- The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders and remitted for fresh hearing within four weeks, directing adherence to Section 37’s parameters and reasoned recording of satisfaction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Union of India)
- High Court erred by granting bail despite commercial-quantity seizure under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 29, 30 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
- Section 37 embargo not complied with: no recorded satisfaction on twin conditions.
- Call data, seizure memos and statements under Section 67 implicate respondent’s active role.
- Delay and health grounds cannot override the statutory bar; liberal bail defeats NDPS Act’s object.
Respondent (Vigin K. Varghese)
- No direct material linking accused to conscious control; recovery from container, not personal custody.
- Statements lack independent corroboration.
- Prolonged custody since October 2022 and unlikely trial completion justify bail.
- No antecedents; no risk of absconding or tampering; High Court acted within Article 21 discretion.
Factual Background
Between 05 and 07 October 2022, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized approximately 50.232 kg of cocaine concealed in a container of imported pears belonging to a firm directed by the respondent. He was arrested and statements under Section 67 NDPS Act allegedly admitted ordering, importing and supervising the consignment with an overseas collaborator. An earlier seizure on 02 October 2022 of 198.1 kg methamphetamine and 9.035 kg cocaine from the same network was filed separately. Bail applications before the Special Court were rejected; the Bombay High Court granted bail on grounds of no knowledge, no antecedents, custodial delay and trial delay, leading to the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37(1)(b), NDPS Act: Prohibits bail in commercial-quantity cases unless court records satisfaction, with reasons, on (i) reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty, and (ii) unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
- Section 35, NDPS Act: Raises presumption regarding accused’s culpable mental state when statutory conditions met.
- Sections 21(c), 23(c), 29, 30 read with Section 8(c): Define offences and set thresholds for commercial quantity.
- NDPS Act’s special bail regime overrides general CrPC provisions in commercial-quantity narcotics cases.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court reaffirms and enforces existing statutory bail requirements under the NDPS Act.