Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1316
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.______OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 7768 OF 2025)
UNION OF INDIA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VIGIN K. VARGHESE …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.______OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 11097 OF 2025)
J U D G M E N T
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
2. These appeals, being Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 7768 of
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.11.13
17:41:56 IST
Reason:
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
1
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
2
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.
3
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 quantity of contraband was
seized, there was prima facie no material to show that the applicant had
knowledge of the cocaine concealed in the cartons of apples; that there
were no antecedents; and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near
future. On that basis, it concluded that there existed reasonable grounds to
believe that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offence and that he
was entitled to bail.
9. A subsequent order dated 12.03.2025 passed on a later bail
application arising from the same chain of events proceeded on similar
reasoning and extended the benefit of bail by invoking parity and
reiterating absence of knowledge and prolonged custody. The Union of
India has assailed both these orders in the present appeals which have been
directed to be heard together.
10. Shri Raghavendra P. Shankar, Learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the appellant submits that High Court has erred in granting
bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances
under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 29 and 30 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS
Act. It is urged that the statutory bar under Section 37 was not properly
applied and the reasoning adopted by the High Court is contrary to settled
law. It is contended that the High Court had granted bail without recording
any satisfaction that the respondent was not guilty or that he would not
commit any offence while on bail. The order, it is submitted, is devoid of
reasons demonstrating compliance with the twin conditions prescribed
under Section 37(1)(b).
4
11. The appellant further submits that incriminating materials such as
call data records, seizure memos, and statements recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act clearly implicate the respondent and reveal his active
participation in facilitating import and concealment of narcotic
consignments. The High Court, according to the appellant, misapplied
considerations such as delay of trial and health, which cannot override the
statutory embargo. It is contended that offences of this magnitude
undermine public interest and that a liberal approach in granting bail
defeats the object of the NDPS Act. The Union accordingly prays that the
impugned orders be set aside and the respondent be directed to surrender.
12. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
submits there is no direct material linking respondent to the possession or
conscious control of the contraband seized. It is urged that the recovery
was from a shipping container arriving from abroad and not from the
personal custody or premises of the respondent. The statements relied upon
by the prosecution, are recorded by the enforcement officers and lack
independent corroboration. The respondent emphasizes that he has been in
custody since October 2022 and that the trial having not commenced in
real earnest, it is unlikely to happen in the near future.
13. It is contended that the High Court exercised sound discretion by
harmonizing the rigour of Section 37 with the right to personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the principle
that prolonged incarceration without trial cannot be justified, particularly
when delay is not attributable to the accused. The respondent submits that
he has cooperated throughout the investigation; has no prior criminal
antecedents; and, poses no risk of absconding or tampering with the
evidence. It is argued that the impugned orders reflect a reasoned exercise
of judicial discretion after examining the case diary and no interference
5
under Article 136 of Constitution of India is warranted. It is also pointed
out that appellants suffer from unexplained delay in filing.
14. We have perused the impugned orders
dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025. Both orders proceed essentially on four
planks, absence of knowledge of the cocaine to the respondent in the
imported consignment, absence of antecedents, length of custody and
perceived delay in conclusion of the trial, and a consequent conclusion that
there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of
the offence.
15. At this stage, two features stand out. The High Court’s conclusion
that there is no material to show that the applicant had any knowledge of
the cocaine in the consignment has been arrived at without discussion of
the statements of the respondent and circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution, including the assertion that the respondent had placed the
orders for import, controlled the logistics chain, coordinated with the
overseas supplier, and was present when the consignment was opened. The
High Court has not examined whether those circumstances, taken at face
value for the limited purpose of bail, could prima facie indicate conscious
control or involvement sufficient to attract the presumption of culpable
mental state indicated under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.
16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that there
were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before this Court
includes the Union’s assertion that the respondent had already been
apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of approximately 198.1
kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly
imported through the same channel only days before the present seizure.
That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.
6
17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a
finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is
not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and
likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual
observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which
would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily
rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusion of this
nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution’s assertions of
operative control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon
appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at
first instance.
18. This Court ordinarily shows deference to the discretion exercised
by the High Court while considering the grant of bail. However, offences
involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct
statutory footing. Section 37 enacts a specific embargo on the grant of bail
and obligates the Court to record satisfaction on the twin requirements
noticed above, in addition to the ordinary tests under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
19. In the present case, the High Court has not undertaken the analysis
of those twin requirements with reference to the material placed by the
prosecution. The orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 do not advert to
the allegation regarding the respondent’s prior involvement in a seizure of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances only days prior to the seizure
forming the subject matter of the present complaint, nor do they engage
with the prosecution’s assertion as to the respondent’s role in arranging,
importing, clearing and supervising the consignments. The omission to
consider these factors bears directly upon the statutory satisfaction required
by Section 37(1)(b).
7
20. We are of the view that, in the facts of this case, it would not be
appropriate for this Court at the threshold stage itself to render findings on
whether there are or not reasonable grounds, for believing that the
respondent is not guilty, or on whether he is likely to commit any offence
while on bail. That factual assessment, which the statute requires to be
made and recorded with reasons, is one that the High Court must undertake
upon a complete and fair appraisal of the rival contentions based on
materials placed before it.
21. In our considered view, the interests of justice would be met if the
impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court
for fresh consideration of the respondent’s prayer for bail, keeping in view
the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the nature and quantity of
contraband alleged to have been seized including 50.232 kilograms of
Cocaine on 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, the role attributed to the
respondent in the said import, the allegation of his involvement in an
earlier seizure of 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035
kilograms of cocaine in early October 2022, the period of custody
undergone since October 2022, and the stage of trial before the Special
Court.
22. In the result, the following order is passed:
(1) The impugned orders of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 are set aside.
(2) The matters are remitted to the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay for fresh consideration of the respondent’s prayer for bail.
The High Court shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing to
both the sides and upon adverting to the statutory requirements of
Section 37 and to the relevant material on record, pass a reasoned
8
order keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove within four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(3) Until the High Court takes a decision, and purely as an
interim arrangement, the respondent shall continue to have the benefit
flowing from impugned orders including the terms and conditions of
bail as presently operative. It is made clear that any infraction of the
conditions of bail, including any attempt to contact witnesses or
tamper with evidence, shall entitle the prosecuting agency to move for
immediate cancellation before the High Court during the interregnum.
(4) We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case and all contentions of both parties are left open to
be urged before the High Court.
23. The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
........................................J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
........................................J.
[N. V. ANJARIA]
New Delhi;
November 13, 2025
9
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.______OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 7768 OF 2025)
UNION OF INDIA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VIGIN K. VARGHESE …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.______OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 11097 OF 2025)
J U D G M E N T
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
2. These appeals, being Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 7768 of
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.11.13
17:41:56 IST
Reason:
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
1
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
2
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.
3
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 quantity of contraband was
seized, there was prima facie no material to show that the applicant had
knowledge of the cocaine concealed in the cartons of apples; that there
were no antecedents; and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near
future. On that basis, it concluded that there existed reasonable grounds to
believe that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offence and that he
was entitled to bail.
9. A subsequent order dated 12.03.2025 passed on a later bail
application arising from the same chain of events proceeded on similar
reasoning and extended the benefit of bail by invoking parity and
reiterating absence of knowledge and prolonged custody. The Union of
India has assailed both these orders in the present appeals which have been
directed to be heard together.
10. Shri Raghavendra P. Shankar, Learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the appellant submits that High Court has erred in granting
bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances
under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 29 and 30 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS
Act. It is urged that the statutory bar under Section 37 was not properly
applied and the reasoning adopted by the High Court is contrary to settled
law. It is contended that the High Court had granted bail without recording
any satisfaction that the respondent was not guilty or that he would not
commit any offence while on bail. The order, it is submitted, is devoid of
reasons demonstrating compliance with the twin conditions prescribed
under Section 37(1)(b).
4
11. The appellant further submits that incriminating materials such as
call data records, seizure memos, and statements recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act clearly implicate the respondent and reveal his active
participation in facilitating import and concealment of narcotic
consignments. The High Court, according to the appellant, misapplied
considerations such as delay of trial and health, which cannot override the
statutory embargo. It is contended that offences of this magnitude
undermine public interest and that a liberal approach in granting bail
defeats the object of the NDPS Act. The Union accordingly prays that the
impugned orders be set aside and the respondent be directed to surrender.
12. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
submits there is no direct material linking respondent to the possession or
conscious control of the contraband seized. It is urged that the recovery
was from a shipping container arriving from abroad and not from the
personal custody or premises of the respondent. The statements relied upon
by the prosecution, are recorded by the enforcement officers and lack
independent corroboration. The respondent emphasizes that he has been in
custody since October 2022 and that the trial having not commenced in
real earnest, it is unlikely to happen in the near future.
13. It is contended that the High Court exercised sound discretion by
harmonizing the rigour of Section 37 with the right to personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the principle
that prolonged incarceration without trial cannot be justified, particularly
when delay is not attributable to the accused. The respondent submits that
he has cooperated throughout the investigation; has no prior criminal
antecedents; and, poses no risk of absconding or tampering with the
evidence. It is argued that the impugned orders reflect a reasoned exercise
of judicial discretion after examining the case diary and no interference
5
under Article 136 of Constitution of India is warranted. It is also pointed
out that appellants suffer from unexplained delay in filing.
14. We have perused the impugned orders
dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025. Both orders proceed essentially on four
planks, absence of knowledge of the cocaine to the respondent in the
imported consignment, absence of antecedents, length of custody and
perceived delay in conclusion of the trial, and a consequent conclusion that
there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of
the offence.
15. At this stage, two features stand out. The High Court’s conclusion
that there is no material to show that the applicant had any knowledge of
the cocaine in the consignment has been arrived at without discussion of
the statements of the respondent and circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution, including the assertion that the respondent had placed the
orders for import, controlled the logistics chain, coordinated with the
overseas supplier, and was present when the consignment was opened. The
High Court has not examined whether those circumstances, taken at face
value for the limited purpose of bail, could prima facie indicate conscious
control or involvement sufficient to attract the presumption of culpable
mental state indicated under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.
16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that there
were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before this Court
includes the Union’s assertion that the respondent had already been
apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of approximately 198.1
kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly
imported through the same channel only days before the present seizure.
That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.
6
17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a
finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is
not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and
likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual
observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which
would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily
rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusion of this
nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution’s assertions of
operative control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon
appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at
first instance.
18. This Court ordinarily shows deference to the discretion exercised
by the High Court while considering the grant of bail. However, offences
involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct
statutory footing. Section 37 enacts a specific embargo on the grant of bail
and obligates the Court to record satisfaction on the twin requirements
noticed above, in addition to the ordinary tests under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
19. In the present case, the High Court has not undertaken the analysis
of those twin requirements with reference to the material placed by the
prosecution. The orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 do not advert to
the allegation regarding the respondent’s prior involvement in a seizure of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances only days prior to the seizure
forming the subject matter of the present complaint, nor do they engage
with the prosecution’s assertion as to the respondent’s role in arranging,
importing, clearing and supervising the consignments. The omission to
consider these factors bears directly upon the statutory satisfaction required
by Section 37(1)(b).
7
20. We are of the view that, in the facts of this case, it would not be
appropriate for this Court at the threshold stage itself to render findings on
whether there are or not reasonable grounds, for believing that the
respondent is not guilty, or on whether he is likely to commit any offence
while on bail. That factual assessment, which the statute requires to be
made and recorded with reasons, is one that the High Court must undertake
upon a complete and fair appraisal of the rival contentions based on
materials placed before it.
21. In our considered view, the interests of justice would be met if the
impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court
for fresh consideration of the respondent’s prayer for bail, keeping in view
the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the nature and quantity of
contraband alleged to have been seized including 50.232 kilograms of
Cocaine on 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, the role attributed to the
respondent in the said import, the allegation of his involvement in an
earlier seizure of 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035
kilograms of cocaine in early October 2022, the period of custody
undergone since October 2022, and the stage of trial before the Special
Court.
22. In the result, the following order is passed:
(1) The impugned orders of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 are set aside.
(2) The matters are remitted to the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay for fresh consideration of the respondent’s prayer for bail.
The High Court shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing to
both the sides and upon adverting to the statutory requirements of
Section 37 and to the relevant material on record, pass a reasoned
8
order keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove within four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(3) Until the High Court takes a decision, and purely as an
interim arrangement, the respondent shall continue to have the benefit
flowing from impugned orders including the terms and conditions of
bail as presently operative. It is made clear that any infraction of the
conditions of bail, including any attempt to contact witnesses or
tamper with evidence, shall entitle the prosecuting agency to move for
immediate cancellation before the High Court during the interregnum.
(4) We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case and all contentions of both parties are left open to
be urged before the High Court.
23. The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
........................................J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
........................................J.
[N. V. ANJARIA]
New Delhi;
November 13, 2025
9