Supreme Court Quashes Bail Orders In NDPS Case; Directs Fresh High Court Hearing On Statutory Satisfaction Under Section 37 Threshold In Cocaine–Methamphetamine Import Case
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the Bombay High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused and directed the High Court to reconsider the bail pleas afresh. The case concerns allegations that the accused oversaw the import and logistics chain of refrigerated containers in which authorities recovered large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine during two seizures conducted days apart. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence asserts that the accused coordinated shipments from an overseas supplier and played an operative role in the import process, while the defence disputes any conscious possession of the contraband. The Court remitted the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The appeals arise from prosecutions instituted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in relation to two seizures of narcotic substances involving consignments imported from South Africa. The respondent, stated to be a director and operative mind of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., was connected to a refrigerated shipping container declared to contain pallets of pears. Acting on specific information, officers of the DRI escorted the container for examination on 05.10.2022. On 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, officers allegedly recovered fifty brick-shaped white packets concealed within cartons of apples, weighing approximately 50.232 kilograms, which field-tested positive for cocaine. The contraband was seized under panchnama.
Statements of the respondent were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he allegedly admitted ordering the consignment, importing the goods using his firm’s Import Export Code, and supervising clearance and delivery processes. The Directorate asserted that another seizure on 02.10.2022, involving 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of cocaine, was traceable to the same network involving the respondent.
The respondent was arrested in October 2022. A complaint was filed before the Special Court on or about 01.04.2023. His initial bail plea was rejected on 24.01.2024. Thereafter, the High Court granted bail on 22.01.2025 and again on 12.03.2025, reasoning that there was no material to show knowledge of the concealed cocaine, that the respondent had no antecedents, had undergone prolonged custody, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Union challenged these orders before the Supreme Court.
The Court recorded that both High Court orders proceeded “essentially on four planks, absence of knowledge of the cocaine to the respondent in the imported consignment, absence of antecedents, length of custody and perceived delay in conclusion of the trial, and a consequent conclusion that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence.”
It stated that the conclusion regarding absence of knowledge had been reached “without discussion of the statements of the respondent and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including the assertion that the respondent had placed the orders for import, controlled the logistics chain, coordinated with the overseas supplier, and was present when the consignment was opened.” The Court recorded that the High Court had not examined whether these circumstances could, prima facie, indicate conscious control sufficient to attract the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.
The Court observed that although the High Court noted absence of antecedents, the material before it included the Union’s assertion that “the respondent had already been apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine … only days before the present seizure,” and that this assertion was “neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.”
It stated that the High Court’s finding that there existed reasonable grounds to believe the respondent was not guilty was “not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)” and therefore required careful appraisal of material. The Court recorded that returning such a finding without addressing the prosecution’s assertions “risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance.”
The Court stated that although deference is ordinarily shown to the High Court’s discretion in bail matters, offences involving commercial quantities stand on a “distinct statutory footing.” It recorded that Section 37 imposes a “specific embargo” and obligates courts to record satisfaction on the twin requirements in addition to ordinary bail tests.
The Court concluded that the High Court had not undertaken this analysis and that the omission directly impacted the statutory satisfaction mandated under Section 37(1)(b).
The Court directed that “the impugned orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 are set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for fresh consideration of the respondent’s prayer for bail.” The High Court “shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the sides and upon adverting to the statutory requirements of Section 37 and to the relevant material on record, pass a reasoned order … within four weeks.”
The respondent “shall continue to have the benefit flowing from the impugned orders” until the High Court decides the matter, subject to compliance with bail conditions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Raghavendra P. Shankar, Learned Additional Solicitor General
Case Title: Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1316
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7768/2025 & 11097/2025
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N.V. Anjaria
