MAJID ALI @ MAJIT ALI @ ALEX vs UNION OF INDIA

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh

CRM (NDPS) 1363 OF 2026

Majid Ali @ Majit Ali @ Alex
-Versus-
Union of India

For the Petitioner : Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Labani Sikder, Adv.
Mr. Souvik Dey, Adv.
Mr. Subhrajyoti Hazra, Adv.



For the DRI Authority : Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.
Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv.
Mr. Gourab Karmakar, Adv.
Ms. Debjani Halder, Adv.


Reserved On : 08.10.2026

Judgement On : 13.11.2026
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :
The present application for bail has been preferred by the petitioner in
connection with N.D.P.S Case No. N - 255 of 2025, arising out of
DRI/KZU/NDPS/ENQ-75/2025 dated 20.08.2026 under Sections 8(c) read
with sections 22(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The prosecution case reflects that acting on specific intelligence, DRI
officers intercepted two persons, namely, Sanu Khan and Md. Mehfoz
Haiyat, on 19.08.2025, when they were about to leave the office of a courier
firm, namely, M/s Shree Maruti Courier Service Private Limited (situated at
Topsia Road, Kolkata), after taking delivery of a courier consignment which

2
arrived from Delhi. The consignment, comprising a soft toy, was opened in
the presence of the apprehended persons at the DRI office in New Town,
which led to the recovery of 64.87 grams of a white lumpy substance that
tested positive for cocaine. The aforesaid two persons revealed that they
went to collect the courier parcel on the instructions of the petitioner (Majid
Ali @ Alex).
On 20.08.2025, based on further information, DRI officers identified and
located another courier parcel at the office of M/s Shree Maruti Courier
Service Private Limited (at 3 Airport Gate, SGIL Residenzza Complex,
opposite Hazarduari Airport City Hotel, Belghoria Express Highway), bearing
Consignment No.25035200224979, booked in the name of one “Mark
William”, 36, Beck Bagan, Kolkata – 700017, booked on 19.08.2025 from
Delhi, Tigri Extension. DRI officers, in the presence of the hub manager of
courier company and two independent witnesses, opened the courier parcel
at the office of the courier company, and a pink-coloured soft toy (Teddy
bear) was recovered. The soft toy was cut open and from its core an
irregularly shaped object wrapped in white tissue paper was recovered.
Upon removal of the wrappings, three (03) oval-shaped capsules containing
a white lumpy substance covered with transparent plastic were recovered.
The lumpy white substance weighed 62 grams and tested positive for
cocaine.
On the same day, in the afternoon, i.e., 20.08.2025, acting on
information Majid Ali/Petitioner was apprehended from the Ballygunge–
Hazra Road crossing and brought to the DRI office for questioning. During

3
the preliminary investigation Majid Ali/Petitioner divulged that a lady
passenger, namely, Flourish Ezenwa, a Nigerian national, would be arriving
from Delhi to Kolkata by Air India Flight No. AI 2400 at 23:15 hours. Upon
arrival of the said flight, the lady passenger was intercepted, and only upon
rigorous questioning she admitted carrying cocaine concealed in her
rectum, which she needed to eject as it was causing her discomfort. She
was issued summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and immediately
upon reaching the DRI office, a lady officer accompanied her to the
washroom at the DRI office. The Nigerian lady came out after ejecting two
oval-shaped capsules containing cocaine from her rectum. Upon weighment,
the white lumps so recovered were found to weigh 131.40 grams, and the
same tested positive for cocaine.
Investigation revealed that the petitioner had engaged Sanu Khan, Md.
Mehfoz Haiyat, Pramod Shaw and Ayaan @ Laale to collect cocaine from
courier firms and to receive cocaine from carriers arriving at Kolkata by
flights from Delhi.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued regarding
the innocence of the petitioner as also his false implication in connection
with the present case.
The following issues were highlighted on behalf of the petitioner:
(i) The evidence against the petitioner consists only of statements under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are statements of other co-accused
and have no evidentiary value after submission of the charge-sheet. To

4
that effect, the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment in Tofan
Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 .
(ii) The only connecting evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the
alleged WhatsApp chats, which also have no evidentiary value for the
following reasons:
(a) No certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act /
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam was relied upon or
produced before the Court.

(b) The WhatsApp chats relied upon by the prosecution, relating to
certain banking transactions, are completely denied, as the
account do not belong to the present petitioner but stands in the
name of Sanu Khan, who is a co-accused and has been released on
bail in another case.
(c) The mobile phone seized from the possession of the petitioner
do not belong to the petitioner. Further, the SIM card belongs to
someone else, and the prosecution has purposely evaded this issue
while advancing their arguments. No document was produced to
establish any connection between the mobile phone seized and the
present petitioner.
(d) The WhatsApp chats clearly indicate that the communications
were between one “Mac” and one “Zen”. The prosecution has never
claimed that the petitioner is either of them. On the contrary, the
name of the petitioner is Majid Ali @ Alex. Neither Mac nor Zen has
been made an accused in the instant case.

5
(e) The same WhatsApp chats which have been used as evidence in
the present case were also relied upon in an earlier case, in
connection with which the petitioner was released on bail.
Additionally, it was argued whether the same evidence could be
used in both cases when the cause of action are different.

(iii) The co-accused, namely, Flourish Ezenwa, in her statement before the
DRI, revealed that the contraband was received from one Gonzales,
which clearly indicates that the WhatsApp chats between Mac and Zen
are completely irrelevant in the instant case. There is no material to
show any connection between the person named Gonzales and the
present petitioner. Moreover, the said Gonzales has also not been made
an accused in the instant case.
(iv) The prosecution tried to connect one Mac with the instant case and
produced a document to show that Mac was already in custody in
another case. The document produced by the prosecution itself reveals
that Mac was arrested in January 2025 and has remained in custody
since then. Therefore, the present cause of action, which arose on
20.08.2025, could not have any nexus with Mac, as he was already in
custody for more than seven months on the date of the incident.
(v) The WhatsApp chats relate to statements, messages and information
exchanged over a considerable period of time. It is nearly impossible
that the person named Gaurav Gupta, who is the owner of the mobile
phone and SIM card, would not have blocked the SIM card and the
phone for such a long period or taken any steps in that regard. It is the

6
case of the petitioner that a nexus existed between the Investigating
Officer and Gaurav Gupta, for which the petitioner has been made a
scapegoat in order to save the said Gaurav Gupta @ Zen.
(vi) Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the petitioner had
deposited money in the account to purchase cocaine, the amount of the
transactions reflected in the WhatsApp chats over a considerable period
of time would cumulatively correspond to the purchase of only 5 to 10
grams of cocaine. The said quantity is below commercial quantity and
would only indicate that the petitioner was a consumer of drugs and
was in no way involved in the racket as alleged by the prosecution.
Th e petitioner relied upon the judgment in Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of
India , reported in (2021) 20 SCC 50 . By referring to the said judgment, the
petitioner emphasized that WhatsApp messages downloaded from mobile
phones and devices seized from the office premises of the appellant therein
could not be treated as sufficient material to establish a live link between the
accused and the co-accused, particularly when none of the contraband
seized by the prosecution during the course of the search was connected
with the petitioner/accused and the allegations were based only on
disclosures made by the co-accused.
Petitioner as such prayed for bail on any condition.
Learned Advocate appearing for the DRI opposed the prayer for bail and
advanced his arguments on the following issues:
(i) DRI intercepted a courier parcel bearing Consignment No.

7
25035200224948 dated 18.08.2025, booked from Delhi by one Sandeep
Kumar through a courier firm, namely, M/s Shree Maruti Courier, consigned
to Kolkata in the name of one Mark William, Beck Bagan, Kolkata, which
contained cocaine weighing 64 grams concealed inside soft toys. Sanu
Khan and Md. Mehfoz Haiyat went to the courier office to collect the parcel
under the instructions of the petitioner/Majid Ali.

(ii) On 20.08.2025, DRI intercepted another courier parcel bearing
consignment No. 25035200224979 dated 19.08.2025, at the premises of the
courier firm, M/s Shree Maruti Courier, identically booked in the name of
Mark William, Beck Bagan, Kolkata, which contained cocaine weighing 62
grams. The cocaine was similarly found concealed in a soft toy.
(iii) In another case involving seizure of a large quantity of narcotic
consignments at Delhi by the DRI Delhi Zonal Unit, Sandeep Kumar was
arrested, and investigation revealed that the aforesaid two consignments of
cocaine were indeed sent by Sandeep Kumar through Shree Maruti Courier
under the instructions of one person named Mac. The contact number of
Mac provided by Sandeep Kumar to the officers of the DRI Delhi Zonal
Unit was +234 8108148441. The same number was found in the mobile
phone seized from Majid Ali. In this regard, a complaint was filed on
21.02.2026 before the NDPS Court, Saket, New Delhi. The complaint therein
reflects that the two courier parcels were sent through Shree Maruti Courier
by Sandeep Kumar in the name of Mark William, addressed at Beck Bagan,
Kolkata, under the instructions of a person named Mac. A total of 126 grams
of cocaine, constituting commercial quantity, in two consignments booked by

8
Sandeep Kumar from Delhi, was sent to Kolkata under the instructions of
Mac, the user of mobile number +234 8108148441. Both the consignments
were meant for Majid Ali, as is evident from the WhatsApp chats found on
the mobile phone recovered and seized from the possession of the
petitioner/Majid Ali.
(iv) In another case involving seizure of a substantial quantity of narcotic
substances at Delhi, officers of the DRI Kolkata Zonal Unit arrested a
Nigerian national, Akande Olamide John @ Mac, who is presently in judicial
custody at Tihar Jail. The criminal complaint was filed in July 2026 before
the NDPS Court, Saket, New Delhi. Investigation into the case revealed that
Akande Olamide John is the same person referred to as Mac, the user of
Mobile No. +234 8108148441.
(v) Investigation into the seizures of cocaine effected by the officers of the
DRI Kolkata Zonal Unit and Delhi Zonal Unit on different dates clearly
indicated that the original name of Mac is Akande Olamide John, a Nigerian
national, who is the kingpin of a drug syndicate based in Delhi. The said
Mac, with the assistance of Sandeep Kumar, was engaged in procuring and
sending narcotic substances through courier parcels to different persons
across the country. The digital footprints clearly show that Majid Ali is the
person in Kolkata who, with the assistance of Sanu Khan and Md. Mehfoz
Haiyat, used to collect such parcels received through the courier firm,
namely, M/s Shree Maruti Courier.
(vi) The mobile phone of the petitioner was seized, and data was extracted
under the certification of a digital forensic examiner. From the WhatsApp

9
chats retrieved from the mobile phone of the petitioner, it appears that the
petitioner used to have frequent conversations with Mac, the Nigerian
national, regarding transactions involving contraband. The consignment
numbers used to be communicated through WhatsApp and were found in
the petitioner’s WhatsApp chats. The petitioner’s men and agents used to
collect the consignments from the courier service.

(vii) Monetary transactions are also reflected in the WhatsApp chats, and
messages relating to the modus operandi could also be seen from the chats,
which clearly indicates the serious complicity and involvement of the
petitioner with Mac, the Nigerian national, and Sandeep Kumar, the Delhi-
based operator. It clearly establishes that there was a well-thought-out,
conscious and calculated endeavour on the part of the petitioner in dealing
with and trafficking contraband.
(viii) It appears that the petitioner used to work in connivance with Mac
and Sandeep Kumar. It was the petitioner who divulged the name of the
Nigerian lady who was to arrive by an Air India flight, from whom 131.40
grams of cocaine was recovered, which she was carrying in a surreptitious
manner by concealing the same in her rectum. She confirmed that although
she did not know who Majid Ali was, the said consignment was to be
delivered to a carrier of the petitioner, Majid Ali. From the materials collected
during the course of investigation, it is evident that the petitioner is not only
connected with the conspiracy to commit such offence but is also connected
with the commission of the substantive offence. As such, the rigours of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted.

10
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the DRI opposed the bail
application and, in order to fortify the aforesaid arguments, relied upon the
judgment in Ashish v. State of Maharashtra , Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
526 of 2021 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to refuse
anticipatory bail by relying upon the call detail records of the mobile phone
belonging to the petitioner, which, according to the Hon’ble Court, reflected
regular contact between the petitioner and the other co-accused persons.
On behalf of the DRI, reference was also made to Union of India through
Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan, Criminal Appeal No.
1043 of 2021 , arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1771 of 2021 , wherein the bail
granted by the High Court was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It
was specifically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that absence of
possession of contraband on the person of the respondent does not absolve
him from the level of scrutiny required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Attention of the Court was drawn to another paragraph of the same
judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the
respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur, Nagaland,
to Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, with the co-accused; the complaint reflected that
the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicated
that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons
who were known to him; the quantity of contraband found in the vehicle was
of commercial quantity; and the contraband was concealed in the vehicle in
which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused.

11
Relying on the oral and documentary evidences collected in course of
investigation, DRI has prayed for rejecting the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
I have taken into account the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner as well as the prosecution/DRI. The main thrust of the contention
of the petitioner was that he has been implicated only on the basis of
statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were made by co-
accused persons and are inadmissible in evidence. The only connecting
materials relate to WhatsApp chats which do not have any certification
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 63 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam; the WhatsApp chats relate to banking transactions in
the account of Sanu Khan (a co-accused who has been granted bail in
another case); the mobile phone seized do not belong to the petitioner;
communications in the WhatsApp chats refer to different individuals, and
the same evidence is being used in both cases; the phone belongs to one
Gaurav Gupta, who has been shielded by the prosecuting agency.
The prosecuting agency/DRI, on the other hand, has emphasized the
factual matrix, particularly with regard to the recoveries made from the
offices of the courier service, namely, M/s Shree Maruti Air Courier; the
modus operandi of sending the contraband, namely, cocaine, concealed in
soft toys; the information leading to the apprehension of the Nigerian lady
(the other accused), from whom subsequent recoveries were made; and the
materials retrieved from the mobile phone seized from the present petitioner.
The list of documents placed by the prosecution weighs heavily against the
petitioner, which includes:

12
(i) Consignment No. 25035200224948 of M/s Shree Maruti Courier;
(ii) Consignment No. 25035200224979 of M/s Shree Maruti Courier;
(iii) The address at Beck Bagan, Kolkata – 700017, along with Phone No.
9163675198;
(iv) The bank receipts.
All the aforesaid information was available on and retrieved from the
mobile handset recovered from the petitioner. The said mobile handset was
bearing Phone No. 9163675198 and was constantly in touch with Mobile No.
+234 8108148441.
Further, the additional materials reflect that the petitioner was in touch
with Sandeep Kumar throughout the month of August 2025, including
18.08.2025 and 19.08.2025.
So far as the judgment in Bharat Chaudhary (supra), relied upon by the
petitioner, is concerned, the same takes into account additional factors,
particularly the chemical examiner’s report and the absence of any
quantitative analysis of the samples. The petitioner in the instant case do
not dispute that the contraband was cocaine. As such, the said judgment is
not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Having considered the materials collected by the investigating
agency/prosecuting agency in respect of the commercial quantity of cocaine
recovered in the instant case and the chain of events, including the modus
operandi involved in procuring the contraband, I am of the view that the

13
petitioner has failed to overcome the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
As such, his prayer for bail is rejected.
Consequently, CRM (M) 1363 of 2026 is dismissed.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order/judgment, if applied for,
be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)