Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail for Failure to Apply Section 37 NDPS Act—High Court Must Reconsider Bail in 50.232 kg Cocaine Case

Case Name: Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese
Citation: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7768 & 11097 of 2025; 2025 INSC 1316
Date of Judgment/Order: 13 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court granted bail without complying with the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In cases involving commercial quantity, the Court must record satisfaction that (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The High Court failed to examine crucial material, including statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, the respondent’s alleged operational role in import logistics, and his alleged involvement in an earlier seizure of 198.1 kg methamphetamine and 9.035 kg cocaine. The High Court’s reasoning—limited to absence of antecedents, prolonged custody, and supposed lack of knowledge—did not satisfy the mandatory statutory test. As a result, both bail orders were held unsustainable.

Summary: The case arose from the seizure of 50.232 kg of cocaine concealed in a refrigerated shipping container imported from South Africa in the name of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., of which the respondent was a Director. The DRI alleged that the respondent placed import orders, coordinated logistics, supervised clearance, and worked with an overseas collaborator named Mansoor Thachaparamban. Statements recorded under Section 67 allegedly disclosed his role. The respondent had also been arrested in connection with a seizure made only days earlier involving 198.1 kg methamphetamine and 9.035 kg cocaine. After his arrest in October 2022, the Special Court rejected his bail. The High Court, however, granted bail on 22.01.2025 and on parity again on 12.03.2025, reasoning that there was no direct evidence of knowledge, that custody was prolonged, and that trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Challenging this, the Union argued that the High Court ignored the statutory embargo under Section 37, failed to consider the respondent’s alleged role and antecedent involvement, and misapplied considerations of delay. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not examined the prosecution’s assertions or material and that the finding of “reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty” was returned without application of mind to mandatory statutory thresholds.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s bail orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court directed the High Court to decide the bail applications afresh within four weeks, after evaluating the respondent’s alleged role, the seizure of 50.232 kg cocaine, the earlier seizure of 198.1 kg methamphetamine and 9.035 kg cocaine, the duration of custody, and the stage of trial. As an interim arrangement, the respondent was permitted to continue on the same bail terms until the High Court decides the matter, subject to strict compliance and liberty to the prosecuting agency to seek cancellation for any infraction.