1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant regular bail to the applicant accused in a narcotics trafficking case involving a commercial quantity of heroin. The Court held that the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, particularly in view of the applicant’s alleged involvement established through disclosure statements, call detail record (CDR) connectivity with a key supplier, incriminating intercepted conversations, and his conduct in evading investigation. Emphasising that the recovery of 15 kg of heroin from co-accused constitutes a commercial quantity, the Court concluded that bail cannot be granted when material indicates active participation in the narcotics supply chain. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
2. Facts
According to the prosecution narrative, the Special Cell, Delhi, received specific intelligence on 21.02.2024 that three interstate suppliers would arrive near Rajghat Depot to deliver a consignment of heroin. A surveillance team apprehended three individuals at the spot and served them notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Each was found carrying 5 kg of crude heroin, totalling 15 kg. Their disclosure statements revealed that they procured narcotics from suppliers in Manipur and were acting under their directions to deliver the consignment to certain contacts in Delhi, including the applicant. They also stated that the applicant had earlier received narcotic consignments in West Bengal. The applicant was later found absconding, was declared an “absconder,” and was eventually arrested in 2025, though no contraband was recovered from him at that time.
3. Issues
The key legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant met the strict statutory requirements for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in a case involving commercial quantity. The broader questions included whether CDR connectivity with an alleged narcotic supplier, disclosure statements of co-accused, and the applicant’s conduct in evading investigation constituted sufficient prima facie material to deny bail, even in the absence of direct recovery from the applicant.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
Counsel for the applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and had been incarcerated for nearly eleven months without substantive evidence linking him to narcotics trafficking. It was submitted that no contraband was recovered from his possession and the prosecution’s case relied solely on disclosure statements of co-accused persons, which have limited evidentiary value. The applicant contended that there were no incriminating chats, financial transactions, or recoveries demonstrating any nexus with the alleged supplier or with other co-accused. Although CDR connectivity was cited by the State, counsel argued that mere contact with a person accused of an offence does not establish criminal conspiracy, especially when subscriber verification of the mobile numbers was incomplete. On these grounds, he sought regular bail under the principle that incarceration without direct recovery should not override personal liberty.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant’s involvement was not incidental but integral to the narcotics network. The prosecution emphasised that the applicant’s name surfaced consistently in the disclosure statements of arrested co-accused, and CDR records showed repeated communication between the applicant and the supplier based in Manipur. The State submitted that intercepted conversations revealed discussions about heroin supply, forming corroborative material against the applicant. Importantly, the applicant had evaded investigation despite issuance of notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, resulting in his being declared an “absconder.” His later arrest did not dilute the gravity of the allegations, and the quantity involved being commercial attracted the statutory embargo on bail under Section 37. Thus, the State urged the Court to reject the application.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court’s bail determination hinged on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes two mandatory conditions: the Court must be satisfied that the accused is not prima facie guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions significantly limit judicial discretion when commercial quantities are involved. In narcotics jurisprudence, disclosure statements, CDR evidence, abscondence, and intercepted conversations can cumulatively constitute prima facie material even if direct recovery from the applicant is absent. The NDPS Act prioritises prevention of trafficking networks, and courts invariably place significant weight on the scale of the narcotic recovery. In this case, with 15 kg of heroin seized from co-accused and the applicant’s alleged communication with a supplier forming an evidentiary chain, the Court had to assess whether these materials created sufficient grounds to deny bail under statutory parameters.
7. Precedent analysis
While the judgment does not expressly cite earlier decisions, its reasoning reflects the judicial approach developed in multiple Supreme Court and High Court precedents on Section 37. Courts have repeatedly held that absence of recovery from an accused does not automatically entitle bail where other corroborative materials indicate participation in a narcotics conspiracy. The emphasis on conduct—particularly abscondence—matches precedent where evasion is treated as a factor demonstrating likelihood of non-cooperation. Similarly, CDR links and telephonic conversations have been relied upon in past cases to establish prima facie involvement. The Court followed this jurisprudential pattern by treating the applicant’s communication with the Manipur-based supplier as a significant incriminating circumstance.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the recovery of 15 kg of heroin from co-accused is a substantial and commercial quantity, automatically invoking Section 37. It noted that the applicant had been specifically named in disclosure statements as an intended recipient and as someone who had previously received consignments. Additionally, CDR analysis showed communication between the applicant and the principal supplier, and intercepted calls contained incriminating references to narcotics delivery. The Court observed that although the phones were registered in third-party names, the conversations and usage pattern pointed towards the applicant. His refusal to respond to notices and subsequent abscondence further weakened his claim for bail. Given these cumulative factors, the Court held that it could not record satisfaction that the applicant was not prima facie guilty or that he would not commit further offences if released. Consequently, the bail plea was rejected.
9. Conclusion
The Court ultimately prioritised the statutory presumption against bail in commercial narcotics cases. It concluded that the applicant’s alleged involvement was supported by multiple material links—disclosures, CDR evidence, intercepted conversations, and conduct demonstrating evasion. In such circumstances, and with the trial yet to commence, releasing him on bail would be inconsistent with Section 37 requirements. Thus, the application was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Implications
The judgment underscores that even without direct recovery, participation in a narcotics conspiracy may be inferred through circumstantial materials like CDRs and disclosure statements, especially when accompanied by absconding behaviour. It reinforces the high threshold for bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases, reiterating that courts will closely scrutinise conduct and communication patterns. The ruling signals to accused persons that evasion during investigation may severely prejudice their bail prospects. It also reflects Delhi High Court’s stringent stance on narcotics offences with interstate supply chains, especially those originating from conflict-sensitive regions such as Manipur. The decision therefore strengthens prosecutorial ability to rely on digital and circumstantial evidence to resist bail in large-scale narcotics trafficking cases.
CASE LAW REFERENCES (as reflected in the judgment)
- No express citations contained in the uploaded judgment.
The Court relied on statutory interpretation of Section 37 NDPS Act rather than discussing binding precedents. - Implied reliance on Section 37 jurisprudence.
The Court’s approach aligns with established principles that recovery from co-accused, disclosure corroboration, and CDR links may collectively constitute prima facie evidence. - How the Court applied them.
The Court applied the higher threshold by refusing to record satisfaction on either of the twin conditions—non-guilt and non-recidivism—leading to rejection of bail.
FAQ
1. Why did the Delhi High Court deny bail in this NDPS case?
The Court denied bail because the case involved commercial quantity heroin and the applicant allegedly had CDR links, intercepted conversations, and disclosure-based involvement with the supply chain. Under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail requires strict satisfaction that the accused is not prima facie guilty, which the Court found impossible in this case.
2. Does absence of recovery from an accused help in obtaining bail under the NDPS Act?
Not necessarily. In commercial quantity cases, even without direct recovery, courts may rely on circumstantial evidence, including CDRs, disclosure statements, and conduct such as abscondence. These factors can be sufficient to refuse bail.
3. How does absconding affect bail under NDPS law?
Absconding indicates a likelihood of evasion and undermines the Court’s confidence that the accused will cooperate with the trial. In NDPS cases, this becomes a critical factor because Section 37 already imposes strict conditions on bail.
