Court’s decision
The Supreme Court set aside both Bombay High Court orders granting bail to Vigin K. Varghese in prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 arising from seizures of 50.232 kg of cocaine and an earlier consignment of 198.1 kg of methamphetamine and 9.035 kg of cocaine. The Court held that the High Court failed to consider essential statutory requirements under Section 37 NDPS Act, especially regarding reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration within four weeks. Interim protection continues but is subject to strict compliance with bail terms.
Facts
The case arises from a major narcotics seizure on 6–7 October 2022 when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a shipping container imported from South Africa in the name of a company where Vigin K. Varghese served as director. The container, declared to contain pears, allegedly concealed brick-shaped cocaine packets weighing 50.232 kg. The DRI relied on statements under Section 67 NDPS Act claiming that Varghese arranged imports, coordinated logistics, and was connected to an overseas handler. The agency also highlighted an earlier seizure dated 2 October 2022 involving methamphetamine and cocaine allegedly linked to the same network. After prolonged custody, the High Court granted bail, leading to the present appeals by the Union of India.
Issues
The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in granting bail without satisfying the stringent requirements of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act, particularly:
- Whether there existed reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty.
- Whether the High Court properly assessed the risk of the accused committing an offence while on bail.
- Whether prolonged custody and delay could override statutory restrictions under Section 37.
Petitioner’s arguments (Union of India)
The Union argued that the High Court bypassed the statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act despite the seizure involving commercial quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine. It submitted that the High Court ignored incriminating materials including Section 67 statements, call data records, seizure memos, and allegations of repeated involvement in imports linked to narcotics trafficking. According to the Union, the High Court granted bail without recording mandatory satisfaction regarding guilt or future conduct, and without examining the accused’s alleged role in coordinating shipments, supervising logistics, and being present during the container’s opening. The Union stressed that such offences undermine public safety and cannot attract a liberal bail approach.
Respondent’s arguments (Vigin K. Varghese)
The respondent argued that there was no direct evidence showing conscious possession or knowledge of the concealed cocaine. He emphasised that the container came from abroad and was not recovered from his physical custody or premises. The Section 67 statement lacked independent corroboration, and the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between him and the contraband. The respondent stressed his long custody since October 2022, absence of prior convictions, and full cooperation during investigation. He argued that the High Court correctly balanced the rigour of Section 37 with his right to personal liberty under Article 21, and that interference under Article 136 was unwarranted.
Analysis of the law
The Supreme Court reiterated that offences involving commercial quantities fall squarely within the strict framework of Section 37 NDPS Act, which creates a statutory embargo on bail. Courts must be satisfied that (a) reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is not guilty, and (b) he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. These requirements are additional to the usual bail considerations. Delay in trial and long incarceration, though relevant, cannot substitute statutory satisfaction. The Court stressed that the High Court must scrutinise material such as the accused’s involvement in ordering consignments, controlling logistics, and the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 NDPS Act.
Precedent analysis
Although the judgment does not cite external precedents explicitly, it relies heavily on principles established in:
1. Section 37 NDPS jurisprudence (e.g., in past SC rulings)
The Court reaffirmed that bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases demands strict compliance with Section 37’s dual threshold. Past rulings hold that courts must not grant bail unless they are satisfied about non-guilt and likelihood of non-recurrence.
2. Section 35 NDPS presumption of culpable mental state
The judgment applies this principle by noting that the High Court did not examine whether the respondent’s role prima facie triggered the statutory presumption.
3. Principle that delay cannot override statutory restrictions
The Court emphasised that while delay is a factor, it cannot be used to dilute mandatory conditions under Section 37.
These doctrines collectively guided the Court in remitting the case for fresh analysis.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the High Court granted bail without adequately examining whether the materials showed the accused’s conscious involvement or control over the import chain. It noted that the High Court ignored the prosecution’s assertion that Varghese ordered imports, coordinated logistics, and was present during container opening. Crucially, the High Court failed to consider allegations of involvement in an earlier narcotics seizure just days prior. The Supreme Court held that these omissions strike at the heart of Section 37’s mandatory requirements. It observed that determining whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is not guilty requires careful evaluation of all material, which was not done.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside both bail orders and remitted the matter to the Bombay High Court to reconsider the bail application strictly under Section 37 NDPS Act. The High Court must evaluate the nature and quantity of contraband, the respondent’s alleged role, prior involvement in similar seizures, time spent in custody, and the stage of trial. Interim bail continues until the High Court decides afresh, but any violation of bail conditions will permit immediate cancellation. The Court clarified that it expresses no opinion on merits.
Implications
This ruling reaffirms the Supreme Court’s strict approach in NDPS commercial quantity cases, reiterating that statutory restrictions under Section 37 cannot be bypassed through general observations regarding delay or lack of antecedents. It signals to High Courts nationwide that bail in major narcotics cases must rest on a detailed and reasoned analysis of evidence. The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence requiring judicial caution in narcotics cases with international supply chains, highlighting the need for courts to consider cumulative circumstances, including earlier seizures, logistics control, and statutory presumptions.
Summary of referred doctrines / precedents
- Section 37 NDPS bail jurisprudence – The Supreme Court relied on established principles that bail cannot be granted without satisfaction on guilt and future conduct.
- Section 35 presumption of culpable mental state – This statutory presumption requires courts to prima facie consider whether the accused had knowledge or control over the contraband.
- Delay vs. statutory restriction principle – Reaffirmed that procedural delay cannot dilute statutory bail embargoes.
FAQs
1. What does Section 37 NDPS Act require for granting bail?
Section 37 requires courts to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail, in addition to regular bail considerations.
2. Can prolonged custody alone justify bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases?
No. Delay is a relevant factor, but it cannot override the statutory bar under Section 37 when commercial quantities are involved.
3. Why did the Supreme Court remit the matter back instead of cancelling bail?
The Court felt the High Court must first undertake a complete statutory analysis. Hence, it remitted the case for fresh consideration rather than directly deciding guilt or innocence.
