Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Alleged Drug Cartel Kingpin; Finds Only Co-Accused Disclosures, Unintercepted Calls and Inconclusive Bank Transactions Against Him
Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Commercial-Quantity NDPS Case; Holds Call Records Alone Cannot Incriminate Accused When Conversations Were Never Intercepted
Facts
Nafi Nazar filed an application before the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail in Crime No. VIII/77/DZU/2021 dated 17 December 2021, registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau for offences under Sections 8/21(c)/23/29 of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution case originated from secret information received by the NCB. On 7 December 2021, officials recovered a parcel from a DTDC office allegedly containing 480 grams of charas and 60 grams of methamphetamine.
The parcel had allegedly been sent by co-accused Harikrishan. A subsequent search of his residence allegedly resulted in recovery of another 145 grams of methamphetamine.
Co-accused Paschal was arrested on 8 December 2021, and the NCB allegedly recovered 60 grams of cocaine and 55 grams of methamphetamine from his residence.
According to the NCB, the arrested co-accused named Nafi Nazar in their disclosure statements and alleged that the parcel had been booked on his directions.
The NCB claimed that Nazar was the “kingpin” of the illegal drug cartel.
Nazar was ultimately apprehended on 24 July 2025 at Cochin Airport on the basis of a Look Out Circular and was arrested.
He remained in custody from that date and approached the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the material relied upon by the NCB prima facie connected Nafi Nazar with the alleged drug trafficking conspiracy;
- Whether disclosure statements of co-accused, without incriminating recovery from the applicant, were sufficient to justify continued incarceration;
- Whether mere telephonic connectivity reflected in Call Detail Records could establish complicity when none of the conversations had been intercepted;
- Whether the alleged bank transactions between the applicant and co-accused were sufficient to infer payments relating to contraband;
- Whether the NCB’s delay in calling the applicant for investigation and subsequent issuance of an LOC affected the case for continued custody;
- Whether the slow progress of the trial and the fact that even charges had not yet been framed justified grant of bail; and
- Whether, considering the overall evidentiary circumstances, continued deprivation of the applicant’s liberty was justified.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Nafi Nazar contended that he was innocent and had remained in custody since 24 July 2025 despite there being no legally admissible evidence connecting him to the alleged contraband.
His counsel argued that the NCB’s case was essentially based upon the disclosure statements of co-accused persons.
Regarding the bank transactions relied upon by the NCB, Nazar explained that he was engaged in the spice business and that transactions with co-accused Aslam arose from legitimate commercial dealings.
The defence also emphasised that when the original complaint was filed against the other accused, Nazar had not been formally implicated in the same manner. According to him, this indicated that the allegations against him had been fabricated at a later stage.
Respondent’s Arguments
The NCB opposed bail and contended that Nazar had been absconding, which necessitated issuance of a Look Out Circular and eventually resulted in his arrest at Cochin Airport.
It argued that the evidence was not confined to disclosure statements.
According to the NCB, there was also:
- telephonic connectivity between Nazar and the co-accused; and
- evidence of monetary transactions between them.
The NCB further disputed Nazar’s explanation that the financial dealings related to his spice business.
It characterised that explanation as an afterthought, contending that Nazar had not referred to the spice business in his statement before the NCB.
The prosecution therefore maintained that Nazar was connected with the drug cartel and should not be released on bail.
Analysis of the Law
Mere Call Detail Records Did Not Establish Complicity
One of the most significant findings concerns the evidentiary value of telephonic connectivity.
The Court held that merely because Call Detail Records demonstrate that two persons spoke with each other, criminal complicity cannot automatically be inferred.
The critical deficiency was that none of the calls between Nazar and the co-accused had been intercepted.
Consequently, there was no evidence before the Court regarding what was actually discussed during those conversations.
The existence of telephone calls therefore did not, by itself, establish that the communications concerned narcotics or the alleged conspiracy.
Bank Transactions Did Not Establish Drug Payments
The NCB also relied upon financial transactions between Nazar and the co-accused.
The Court found that the amounts involved were not substantial enough to justify an inference that they represented consideration for purchase or sale of contraband.
The Court additionally questioned the prosecution theory because the transactions had taken place through normal banking channels.
It observed that it was difficult to understand why persons engaged in illegal monetary dealings would transact through banks in the manner reflected in the case.
Thus, the financial material did not provide sufficient corroboration for the NCB’s allegations at the bail stage.
No Contraband or Other Incriminating Material Recovered From Applicant
A crucial factor was that nothing incriminating was recovered from Nafi Nazar.
The narcotics referred to by the NCB had been recovered from the parcel and from the premises of the co-accused.
No contraband was recovered from Nazar personally.
After examining the other material relied upon by the prosecution, the Court concluded that the only evidence ultimately remaining against Nazar was the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons.
This significantly weakened the justification for his continued incarceration.
NCB Did Not Call Applicant for Investigation for Years
The chronology of the investigation was another important consideration.
The NCB had filed its complaint against the co-accused in 2021 after completing investigation against them. Paragraph 95 of that complaint recorded that investigation concerning Nazar remained open and that a supplementary complaint would be filed.
That continued to be the position as of 4 June 2022.
The record further showed that on 28 April 2022 the Delhi NCB had requested its Kochi unit to discreetly verify Nazar’s antecedents and address.
The Kochi unit reported that he was not residing at the stated address and that no case was registered against him at the local police station.
Despite this, Nazar’s passport was renewed on 12 September 2023.
The LOC was issued only on 10 July 2025, and the Court specifically noted that until then the NCB had taken no steps to call Nazar to join the investigation.
This chronology weakened the force of the prosecution’s assertion that Nazar had simply been absconding from the investigation.
Slow Trial Supported Grant of Bail
The Court also considered the progress of the proceedings.
Co-accused Paschal had been granted bail on the same day, largely because the trial had proceeded at a “snail-paced” speed.
During more than one year, the NCB had managed to examine only one witness.
Nazar’s position was even earlier in the criminal process.
Although he had been arrested on 24 July 2025, even the charge had not yet been framed against him when the High Court considered his bail application.
The Court considered this delay alongside the weakness of the incriminating material while deciding whether further incarceration was justified.
Precedent Analysis
The five-page judgment does not cite or analyse any judicial precedents.
The Court decided the bail application directly on the evidentiary material and circumstances before it, particularly:
- absence of recovery from the applicant;
- limited evidentiary value of unintercepted telephone calls;
- nature and amount of the bank transactions;
- reliance upon co-accused disclosure statements;
- chronology of the NCB investigation;
- delay in securing the applicant’s participation; and
- slow progress of the trial.
Accordingly, no external precedent can accurately be attributed to Justice Girish Kathpalia from this particular judgment.
Notably, although the offences invoked include provisions of the NDPS Act involving serious narcotics allegations, this judgment does not contain a separate detailed discussion of Section 37 or cite precedent on the statutory twin conditions. The Court instead reaches its bail conclusion from the particular evidentiary deficiencies recorded in the order.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court assessed each item relied upon by the NCB and found that none sufficiently strengthened the allegation against Nazar at the bail stage.
First, telephonic contact could establish only that calls occurred. Since the calls had not been intercepted, their subject matter remained unknown. The Court therefore refused to infer criminal complicity merely from the CDRs.
Second, the monetary transactions were neither sufficiently substantial nor inherently suspicious to justify treating them as payments for contraband.
Third, no narcotics or other incriminating material had been recovered from Nazar.
Consequently, after excluding the inferential force sought to be attached to the calls and bank transactions, the Court found that the only evidence against Nazar consisted of disclosure statements made by co-accused persons.
Fourth, despite investigation concerning Nazar having remained open since 2021-22, the NCB had not called upon him to join the investigation before the LOC was eventually issued in July 2025.
Finally, the Court considered the extremely slow progress of the prosecution. Even after Nazar’s arrest in July 2025, charges had not been framed.
On a cumulative consideration of these circumstances, the Court held that there was “no reason to deprive further liberty” to Nazar and allowed his bail application.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed Nafi Nazar’s application for regular bail.
The Court found that:
- no contraband or other incriminating material was recovered from him;
- mere telephone calls with co-accused could not establish criminal complicity when their contents were unknown;
- the bank transactions were insufficient to infer payments for contraband;
- the evidence ultimately relied upon against him consisted essentially of disclosure statements of co-accused;
- the NCB had not called him to join investigation for a substantial period before issuing the LOC; and
- even the charge had not been framed despite his custody since July 2025.
Nazar was directed to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The High Court expressly clarified that its observations would not prejudice either party at trial, and the Trial Court was directed to independently decide the matter on the evidence ultimately adduced.
Case Details
Case: Nafi Nazar v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: Bail Application No. 1043/2026; CNR No. DLHC010092312026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 12 August 2026
Result: Regular bail granted in Crime No. VIII/77/DZU/2021 under Sections 8/21(c)/23/29 NDPS Act on a ₹1 lakh personal bond with one surety of the like amount.
