Delhi High Court Denies Bail in NDPS Case: “Accused Attempted to Collect 1880 Grams of MDMA Using a False Identity, Failed to Meet the Twin Conditions Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Court refused bail on the ground that:

1. The accused failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require the court to be:
   • Satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
   • Assured that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
2. The evidence available against the accused prima facie suggests his involvement in a larger drug trafficking conspiracy.
3. The contraband recovered (1880 grams of MDMA) was far beyond the commercial quantity threshold (10 grams).
4. The accused’s conduct at the post office, where he attempted to collect the contraband parcel with a concealed face and fled upon sensing CBI officers, indicated guilty intent.
5. The ongoing investigation into the international drug cartel was at a critical stage, and granting bail could jeopardize it.

Facts of the Case

1. Seizure of Contraband from International Parcels

• On July 4, 2023, the National Crime Bureau (NCB), New Delhi, received an Interpol reference regarding three parcels arriving in India from Belgium. These parcels were suspected to contain prohibited drugs.
• The recipients’ names on the parcels were:
  1. Arjun Gupta (Mumbai)
  2. Anil Kumar (Baraut Tehsil, Prayagraj)
  3. Rohit Yadev (Gokul Dhaba, Prayagraj)
• Two parcels were detained by Customs, and the third remained at a collection point.

2. CBI Investigation and FIR Registration

• CBI took over the case and, in the presence of Customs officials, opened the detained parcels.
• The parcels contained various colored pills, which tested positive for MDMA (Ecstasy) using an NDPS Detection Kit.
• On July 6, 2023, two separate CBI FIRs were registered under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act:
  • FIR No. RC 2202023E0016 (1880 grams of MDMA)
  • FIR No. RC 2202023E0017 (1852 grams of MDMA)

3. Controlled Delivery Operation by CBI

• To apprehend the accused, CBI replaced the seized drugs with dummy parcels and forwarded them to the original addresses.
• A CBI team was dispatched to the post office, with officials stationed to identify and arrest the recipient.

4. Accused’s Attempt to Collect the Parcel & Arrest

• On July 11, 2023, the accused:
  • Inquired about the parcels both in person and telephonically from a postman at the Baraut Post Office.
  • Later arrived at the post office with his face partially covered with a white cloth.
  • Attempted to collect the parcel (addressed to “Rohit Yadev”).
  • Dropped the parcel and fled upon sensing the CBI’s presence.
• On July 13, 2023, the accused was arrested by the CBI and remanded to judicial custody.

5. Statements from Witnesses

• The postman who handled the parcel provided a statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, confirming that:
  • The accused enquired about the parcels beforehand.
  • The accused claimed the parcels as his own.
  • Another suspect, Anil Kumar, called to inquire about his parcel but did not visit the post office.

6. Involvement of Other Suspects

• During interrogation, the accused disclosed that he was acting on the instructions of his brother-in-law, Vinod Jaiswal, who is currently absconding.
• Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against both Vinod Jaiswal and Anil Kumar.
• Investigation revealed that the consignee Rohit Yadev denied any knowledge of the parcel, and Anil Kumar’s address was incomplete.

---

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the accused was in conscious possession of the seized contraband?
2. Whether the accused satisfies the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail?
3. Whether granting bail to the accused would prejudice the ongoing investigation into the larger international drug trafficking conspiracy?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments (Accused)

1. False Implication & Lack of Direct Involvement
   • The accused was neither named in the FIR nor the primary recipient.
   • No bank transactions, call data records (CDRs), or direct links connect the accused to the drug network.
   • The accused’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible (Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1).
2. No Conscious Possession
   • The accused was merely collecting the parcel on behalf of his brother-in-law, Vinod Jaiswal, and was unaware of its contents.
   • Cited Sunil Kumar v. DRI, where the court granted bail to an accused who unknowingly collected contraband.
3. No Risk of Absconding
   • The accused has deep roots in society, no prior criminal history, and has been in custody since July 13, 2023.
   • The chargesheet has been filed, so continued custody serves no purpose.

---

Respondent’s Arguments (CBI)

1. Seriousness of the Offence & Prima Facie Guilt
   • The accused was caught red-handed attempting to collect contraband.
   • The total seized contraband (3.6 kg MDMA) was 188 times the commercial quantity.
2. Conscious Possession & Intent
   • The accused inquired about the parcel, covered his face, and fled when confronted.
   • The CBI’s controlled delivery operation confirmed his intent to possess the contraband.
   • The accused’s conduct meets the definition of conscious possession (Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222).
3. Ongoing Investigation & Risk of Absconding
   • Two co-accused (Vinod Jaiswal and Anil Kumar) remain absconding.
   • Granting bail may allow the accused to influence the investigation or flee.

---

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict bail conditions, requiring courts to be satisfied that:
   • The accused is not guilty.
   • The accused will not commit further offences while on bail.
2. Conscious Possession (Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222)
   • Knowledge and control over the contraband are key elements.
   • The accused’s actions established his awareness of the illicit nature of the parcels.
3. Section 67 NDPS Act Statements Are Inadmissible (Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1)
   • The accused’s confession cannot be used against him.

---

Court’s Conclusion

• Bail Denied.
• The accused failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• The gravity of the offence and the accused’s prima facie involvement justified continued custody.
• The investigation into the international drug cartel remains ongoing, and releasing the accused could hamper the probe.

---

Implications of the Judgment

• Reinforces strict bail conditions for NDPS cases.
• Strengthens law enforcement’s ability to use controlled deliveries to apprehend traffickers.
• Raises accountability for individuals knowingly collecting contraband.

This judgment sets a strong precedent for NDPS bail matters where conscious possession and involvement in organized drug trafficking are at issue.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakhs Penalty for Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Injunction Order: “Defendant’s Contumacious Conduct in Withholding and Deleting Sensitive Data Warrants Civil Penalty”