1. Import of commercial quantity of cocaine — Seizure from shipping container — Prosecution under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1930
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Vigin K. Varghese – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4857 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7768 of 2025) With Criminal Appeal No. 4858 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 11097 of 2025)
Decided On : 13-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Adv. Ms. Neena Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rohan Tewari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Adv. Ms. Neena Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rohan Tewari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Offences involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct statutory footing.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – While granting bail, High Court recorded that there were no antecedents against applicant – Material before Court includes Union’s assertion that respondent had already been apprehended in connection with earlier seizure of approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly imported through same channel only days before present seizure – That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in impugned orders – It is statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of material available – Offences involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct statutory footing – Section 37 enacts specific embargo on grant of bail – Impugned orders of High Court set aside and matters remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of respondent’s prayer for bail – Until High Court takes a decision, and purely as an interim arrangement, respondent shall continue to have benefit flowing from impugned orders including terms and conditions of bail as presently operative. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals, being Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025, are directed against the orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granting bail to the respondent accused Vigin K. Varghese on prosecutions instituted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
Interests of justice would be met if impugned orders are set aside and matter is remitted to High Court for fresh consideration of the respondent’s prayer for bail, keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, nature and quantity of contraband alleged to have been seized including 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine on 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, role attributed to the respondent in the said import, allegation of his involvement in an earlier seizure of 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of cocaine in early October 2022, period of custody undergone since October 2022, and the stage of trial before the Special Court.
Result : Criminal Appeals disposed of with directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to personal liberty (Para 13)
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Statutory bar under Section 37 and commercial quantity versus lack of conscious control and prolonged incarceration without trial. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. High Court failed to consider prosecution evidence on conscious control and antecedent involvement when determining the statutory threshold for bail under Section 37. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 )
4. Grant of bail for commercial quantities under the NDPS Act necessitates a reasoned recording of satisfaction regarding the twin conditions prescribed in Section 37. (Para 18 , 20 )
5. Impugned bail orders set aside — Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration under Section 37 — Interim bail maintained. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. What is the statutory requirement for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics under the NDPS Act?
Under Section 37, the court must record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, in addition to ordinary bail tests. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. How should a court evaluate the reasonable grounds for not being guilty under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
The court must undertake a careful appraisal of the material available, including prosecution assertions regarding operative control and antecedent involvement, rather than treating prolonged incarceration alone as justification for bail. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 )
8. Does the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act apply during bail hearings?
Yes, the court must examine whether circumstances, such as controlling the logistics chain and coordinating imports, prima facie indicate conscious control sufficient to attract the presumption of a culpable mental state. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals, being Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025, are directed against the orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granting bail to the respondent accused Vigin K. Varghese on prosecutions instituted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”. The first order, rendered in Criminal Bail Application No. 1416 of 2024, relates to the seizure of approximately 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine imported from South Africa in the name of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., of which the respondent is a Director. The second order, rendered in Criminal Bail Application No. 1540 of 2024, granted bail on the ground of parity in a connected prosecution arising from a seizure effected within a few days of the first. As both appeals concern the same accused, the same investigating agency, and substantially overlapping facts and legal issues, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. On 05.10.2022, Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, acting on specific information, identified a refrigerated shipping container bearing No. MSDU-9809038, declared to contain pallets of pears, imported from South Africa in the name of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd. The respondent is stated to be a Director and the operative mind of said concern. The container was escorted from the terminal at Jawaharlal Nehru Port to EFC Logistics CFS for examination in the presence of two independent panch witnesses and the respondent.
4. On 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, upon opening the said container and segregating the cartons, officers allegedly recovered fifty brick-shaped white packets concealed within cartons of green apples (pears) that were intermixed with the declared consignment of pears. On weighment, these packets were found to weigh approximately 50.232 kilograms. Field testing indicated the presence of cocaine. The contraband was seized under a panchnama dated 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022.
5. Statements of the respondent came to be recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein it is alleged that he admitted to ordering the consignment from a South African supplier, to having imported the goods using the Import Export Code of his firm, and for supervising the clearance and delivery operations through his logistics handlers. The Directorate further alleges that he identified one Mansoor Thachaparamban as his overseas collaborator who arranged the shipments and that the respondent described the commercial arrangement and coordination undertaken for the consignments.
6. The Directorate also asserts that the present seizure was not isolated. On 02.10.2022, in a separate operation, approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine had been seized, allegedly traceable to the same network involving the respondent and the aforesaid Mansoor Thachaparamban. A separate complaint bearing No. 428 of 2023 in respect of that seizure stands filed before the Special Court for NDPS cases, Panvel. The Union relies on this to show antecedent involvement.
7. The respondent came to be arrested in October 2022 and has remained in custody since then. Upon completion of investigation, a complaint came to be filed before the Special Court on or about 01.04.2023, registered as DRI/MZU/C/INT-96/2022. The application for bail preferred by the respondent was rejected on 24.01.2024, inter alia holding that the material prima facie disclosed his active role and that the fetters of Section 37 were attracted.
8. The respondent thereafter approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of Criminal Bail Application No. 1416 of 2024. By order dated 22.01.2025, the High Court enlarged the respondent on bail. The High Court reasoned that although a large quantit
