Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court Bail Orders in Large Cocaine Seizure; Remits for Fresh Consideration Under S.37 NDPS Act

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria heard appeals by the Union of India challenging two orders of the Bombay High Court that had granted bail to an accused director in connected NDPS prosecutions. The appeals arose from seizures of narcotic consignments allegedly imported in the name of a private company and implicated the application of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Supreme Court allowed leave, set aside the High Court orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 and remitted the matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration of the respondent's bail applications in light of statutory requirements under Section 37. The Court observed that "offences involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct statutory footing. Section 37 enacts a specific embargo on the grant of bail and obligates the Court to record satisfaction on the twin requirements noticed above, in addition to the ordinary tests under the Code of Criminal Procedure." The Court noted that the High Court had not undertaken the necessary analysis of the prosecution material, including allegations of operative control of imports and antecedent involvement in an earlier seizure, and therefore a fresh, reasoned order was required. The Supreme Court made clear that it had "not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case" and permitted the respondent to continue to enjoy the benefit of bail pending the High Court's reconsideration, subject to existing conditions and provision for immediate cancellation on infraction.

Background The dispute arose from the discovery on 06–07.10.2022 of fifty brick-shaped packets concealed within cartons of imported apples/pears in a refrigerated container declared to contain fruit imported from South Africa in the name of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd. The packets weighed approximately 50.232 kilograms and field tests indicated the presence of cocaine. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, escorted and opened the container at a CFS in the presence of panch witnesses and the respondent, who was a director of the importing company.

The respondent was arrested in October 2022. Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were relied on by the prosecution, which alleged that the respondent had ordered the consignment, used the firm's IEC, supervised clearance and logistics, and identified an overseas collaborator named Mansoor Thachaparamban. The DRI also relied on an earlier seizure on 02.10.2022 of approximately 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of cocaine said to be traceable to the same network; a separate complaint arising from that seizure was pending before the Special NDPS Court, Panvel.

The Special Court initially refused bail on 24.01.2024. The Bombay High Court, however, granted bail on 22.01.2025 in Criminal Bail Application No.1416 of 2024 and again on 12.03.2025 in a connected application by invoking parity; it relied on conclusions that there was prima facie no material of the accused's knowledge of the cocaine, absence of antecedents, and likely delay in trial. The Union challenged those orders before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court failed to apply the statutory embargo under Section 37 correctly and did not record satisfaction on the twin conditions required by Section 37(1)(b).

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not adequately addressed the prosecution's material—statements, seizure memos and alleged prior involvement—and had treated prolonged incarceration and trial delay as overriding factors without the requisite statutory satisfaction. The matter was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration, with the Supreme Court directing the High Court to afford hearing to both sides, advert to Section 37 requirements and relevant material (including the 50.232 kg cocaine seizure and the earlier 198.1 kg methamphetamine/9.035 kg cocaine seizure), and pass a reasoned order within four weeks. Until then, the respondent's bail as granted by the High Court remained operational; any breach of bail conditions, including attempts to contact witnesses or tamper with evidence, would permit immediate application for cancellation.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1316 (SLP(Crl.) Nos. 7768 & 11097 of 2025) Case Title: Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Raghavendra P. Shankar, Additional Solicitor General of India For the Respondent(s): Senior counsel for Vigin K. Varghese (name not indicated in the judgment)