Delhi High Court Denies Bail in 81.5 Kg Cocaine Case; Holds No Personal Recovery Needed Where Circumstantial Evidence Prima Facie Shows Conspiracy Role
Delhi High Court Rejects Second Bail Application in 81.515 Kg Cocaine Case; Finds Circumstantial Chain Prima Facie Connects Applicant to Drug Transaction
Facts
Amrik Singh Bedi filed his second application for regular bail in Case No. VIII/36/DZU/2024, registered under Sections 8, 21, 23, 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act. His first bail application before the High Court had earlier been withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court afresh.
The NCB case began with information received on 11 November 2024 regarding a parcel at a courier office in Nangal Raya, New Delhi, allegedly containing 1.015 kg of cocaine and destined for Australia. During subsequent investigation, the NCB apprehended various co-accused and, on 14 November 2024, allegedly recovered 81.515 kg of cocaine from the residence of co-accused Avadhesh Yadav @ Gopi.
As against Bedi, the prosecution alleged that he had earlier travelled to Dubai with co-accused Rishi Sachdeva and others and met Pawan Thakur @ Pinchu. He was thereafter allegedly asked to travel to Mehsana, Gujarat, to locate a consignment carrying an Apple AirTag. According to the NCB, Bedi travelled to Mehsana on 22 March 2024, located the relevant factory and interacted with its manager while introducing himself as “Bobby Walia”.
The prosecution further alleged that the consignment was collected two days later by Avadhesh Yadav on Pawan Thakur’s instructions. Bedi’s Section 67 statement was also said to contain an admission that he had received ₹12 lakh in cash for the work allegedly undertaken by him.
Bedi was arrested on 9 December 2024 and remained in custody thereafter, apart from 45 days of interim bail.
Issues
The principal issues before the Delhi High Court were:
- Whether the absence of any direct recovery of cocaine from Bedi or at his instance could take his case outside the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the material relied upon by the NCB provided reasonable grounds for believing that Bedi was not guilty of the alleged conspiracy.
- Whether the alleged March 2024 visit to Mehsana could be connected to the cocaine ultimately recovered in November 2024.
- Whether Bedi’s alleged Section 67 confession could be considered at the bail stage after Tofan Singh.
- Whether the CDRs, tower location, flight records, factory manager’s statement and other surrounding circumstances independently linked Bedi to the alleged transaction.
- Whether Bedi was entitled to parity with co-accused Rishi Sachdeva and Lokesh Chopra, who had already received bail.
- Whether his period of custody, lack of criminal antecedents and completion of investigation were sufficient to override Section 37.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Bedi argued that the prosecution case against him was, at its highest, confined to an allegation that he travelled to Gujarat to locate a consignment using an Apple AirTag.
He stressed that the AirTag itself was never recovered and that he was not alleged to have actually possessed, transported, stored or delivered any narcotic substance.
He challenged the factory manager’s version by pointing out that Mahesh Sharma had allegedly attempted to contact Bedi after the visit, whereas Bedi did not respond. It was also argued that Mahesh Sharma had not properly identified him before the investigating agency.
The defence also attacked the prosecution’s electronic evidence. It argued that the mobile number attributed to Bedi could not have been used in March 2024 because the relevant SIM was shown as activated only on 16 October 2024.
Bedi further submitted that there was no direct nexus between the alleged March 2024 Gujarat visit and the November 2024 recovery. No contraband was recovered from him, and there was no allegation that he booked, transported, stored or distributed cocaine.
He also sought parity with Rishi Sachdeva and Lokesh Chopra, both of whom had been granted bail, and relied on his clean antecedents, prolonged custody and completion of investigation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The NCB opposed bail, emphasising that commercial quantity was involved and therefore the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 applied.
It argued that the evidence had to be viewed cumulatively rather than in isolated fragments. According to the NCB, Bedi’s role was not limited to merely travelling to Gujarat; he had allegedly met Pawan Thakur in Dubai, travelled to Mehsana, tracked the consignment, entered the factory and attempted to obtain information concerning its release.
The prosecution further relied upon communications involving Bedi and various co-accused, as well as statements of Mahesh Sharma and Gurbani Talwar, flight details and financial circumstances forming part of the alleged conspiracy.
On parity, the NCB argued that Rishi Sachdeva’s and Lokesh Chopra’s bail orders were themselves under challenge before the High Court and that Bedi’s role had to be independently assessed.
Analysis of the Law
No Personal Recovery Does Not Exclude Section 37
The Court rejected the proposition that absence of personal recovery from Bedi weakened Section 37 to the point of making ordinary bail principles applicable.
Relying on State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, the Court held that where commercial quantity is involved, the statutory restrictions under Section 37 cannot be diluted merely because no narcotic substance was recovered from the particular accused.
The Court also referred to Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. State of Gujarat, where the Supreme Court treated an alleged coordinating and facilitating role as relevant even in the absence of direct recovery. In conspiracy cases, physical seizure from the accused is not necessarily decisive.
Section 29 Conspiracy and Cumulative Assessment
The High Court emphasised that Bedi was not merely facing a possession allegation; Section 29 of the NDPS Act concerning abetment and criminal conspiracy was also invoked.
The relevant inquiry was therefore whether the material, viewed as a whole, gave the Court reasonable grounds to believe that Bedi had no connection with the alleged conspiracy.
The Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” under Section 37 require more than ordinary prima facie satisfaction. There must be credible and plausible material capable of persuading the Court that the accused is not guilty.
Precedent Analysis
State of M.P. v. Kajad
The Court relied upon this precedent for the stringent nature of Section 37.
Bail in commercial quantity cases is exceptional and the Court must be satisfied both that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
Md. Nawaz Khan v. Union of India
The Court relied upon Md. Nawaz Khan to explain the meaning of “reasonable grounds”.
The expression requires credible, plausible grounds and not merely a weak or arguable possibility that the accused may ultimately be acquitted.
State of Kerala v. Rajesh
The Court reiterated that the Section 37 standard is something more than ordinary prima facie satisfaction and that a liberal approach to bail is inconsistent with the legislative policy governing commercial quantity NDPS offences.
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar
This precedent was particularly significant because it involved alleged facilitation rather than direct seizure.
The Supreme Court had considered the broader matrix of meetings, communications, logistics and linkages. The Delhi High Court adopted the same cumulative approach here.
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
The High Court expressly accepted that Bedi’s statement under Section 67 NDPS Act could not be used as a confessional statement against him, even at the bail stage.
However, Tofan Singh did not require the Court to disregard independent material such as CDRs, witness statements, travel records or other circumstantial evidence.
The Court consequently stated in clear terms that it was not relying upon Bedi’s Section 67 statement for deciding the Section 37 issue.
NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal and Union of India v. Khalil Uddin
These decisions were used to reinforce that after excluding a Section 67 confession, the Court must still examine whether other independent evidence satisfies the Section 37 threshold.
Court’s Reasoning
CDR and Tower Location Evidence
The prosecution relied upon mobile number 8168450310, allegedly used by Bedi during the relevant period.
The CDRs and tower location data were stated to correspond with his travel itinerary and place the number near the locations relevant to the Gujarat visit. The same number also showed repeated communication with Mahesh Sharma, the factory manager.
The Court rejected the defence argument that the number could not have existed in March 2024 because the SIM showed an activation date of 16 October 2024.
The NCB explained that the October date concerned re-issuance of the SIM after a period of inactivity, whereas the CDRs themselves showed use of the number during March 2024. At the bail stage, this explanation was sufficient to prevent the defence objection from dislodging the prosecution’s electronic material.
Flight Records and Gujarat Visit
The records showed that Bedi travelled to Ahmedabad with Gurbani Talwar on 22 March 2024 with a return ticket for the following day.
However, according to the prosecution, he did not use that booked return flight and instead returned earlier with co-accused Rishi Sachdeva and Amit Mathur.
The Court considered the absence of a satisfactory explanation for this altered travel pattern relevant when read with the allegation that Bedi had been following a location on his phone and proceeded towards the factory.
The Court treated Gurbani Talwar’s statement only as an additional circumstance, since she was not presently cited as a prosecution witness, and did not base its decision on her statement alone.
Factory Manager’s Statement
Mahesh Sharma’s statement formed another part of the circumstantial chain.
The prosecution alleged that Bedi entered the factory, introduced himself as “Bobby Walia”, sought information about the consignment and communicated through the mobile number that Sharma had saved under a similar name.
Although Bedi challenged both the identification and reliability of Sharma’s version, the Court held that these matters were properly for trial.
At the bail stage, Sharma’s statement, when read with the CDRs, travel records and other evidence, could not be said to be wholly uncorroborated.
March Visit and November Cocaine Recovery
The Court also rejected the contention that the eight-month gap completely severed any possible connection between the events.
According to the prosecution case, Bedi went to Mehsana on 22 March 2024 and located the factory where the consignment was lying. Two days later, Avadhesh Yadav allegedly collected the consignment and moved it to Ahmedabad and thereafter Delhi.
In November 2024, Avadhesh Yadav was apprehended and 81.515 kg of cocaine was recovered from his residence.
The Court clarified that it was not finally holding that the drugs recovered in November were necessarily the exact same consignment located in March. However, the continuity of the alleged participants and successive movement of the consignment provided a prima facie connecting link sufficient for the bail stage.
First Section 37 Condition Not Satisfied
After considering the statements of Rishi Sachdeva and Mahesh Sharma, CDRs, tower locations, flight records and surrounding circumstances cumulatively, the High Court held that it was unable to form an opinion that there were reasonable grounds for believing Bedi was not guilty.
The first limb of Section 37(1)(b) therefore failed.
Parity With Co-Accused Rejected
The Court declined to grant bail merely because Rishi Sachdeva and Lokesh Chopra had been released.
Relying upon Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, it held that parity requires a comparative assessment of the accused’s role and the material available against him.
Because the prosecution relied against Bedi upon the factory manager’s statement, his factory visit, electronic material and other corroborative circumstances, the Court held that his case could not automatically be equated with those of the co-accused.
Second Section 37 Condition Also Not Satisfied
The High Court also found the second limb of Section 37 unsatisfied.
The allegations concerned an organised drug-trafficking operation with international linkages, and Bedi was alleged to have travelled to Dubai, gone to Mehsana to locate the consignment and interacted at the factory.
The Court considered this alleged conduct part of a coordinated transaction rather than an isolated association. It therefore found no basis to conclude that Bedi was unlikely to repeat such conduct if released.
Custody Period and Completion of Investigation
Bedi had remained in custody since December 2024 except for 45 days of interim bail.
The Court accepted that custody duration and completion of investigation were relevant factors, but held that they could not independently override the statutory bar under Section 37.
Relying on Balraj Singh @ Billa and NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, the Court observed that neither the mere length of custody nor filing of the chargesheet/complaint automatically justifies bail when the Section 37 conditions remain unsatisfied.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed Amrik Singh Bedi’s second application for regular bail.
It held that:
- absence of direct recovery from an accused does not neutralise Section 37 where conspiracy and facilitation are alleged;
- the Section 67 confession could not be relied upon after Tofan Singh;
- however, independent material including CDRs, tower locations, flight records, witness statements and the Mehsana factory visit could still be considered;
- those circumstances, viewed cumulatively, prima facie connected Bedi with the alleged cocaine transaction;
- the first Section 37 condition was therefore not satisfied;
- parity with co-accused was unavailable because the evidentiary material and alleged role had to be comparatively assessed;
- the Court was also unable to satisfy itself that Bedi was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail; and
- custody and completion of investigation did not override the statutory restrictions.
Accordingly, the Court held that Bedi failed to satisfy either of the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act and refused regular bail.
Key Ratio
In a commercial-quantity NDPS conspiracy case, absence of personal recovery does not dilute Section 37; once a Section 67 confession is excluded, independent circumstantial material must still be assessed cumulatively to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty.
Case Details
Case: Amrik Singh Bedi v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 610/2026
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Date: 19 August 2026
Result: Regular bail dismissed; Court held applicant failed both twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act.
