Calcutta HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Cocaine Shipments Hidden In Soft Toys, Citing Phone Links And Commercial Quantity

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner had satisfied the requirements for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the alleged commercial-quantity cocaine seizures and the prosecution material linking him to them.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the requirements for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It also directed

It rejected the bail application and dismissed CRM (NDPS) No. 1363 of 2026.

01Facts

DRI officers recovered cocaine concealed in soft toys from two courier consignments sent from Delhi to Kolkata, and later recovered a further 131.40 grams of cocaine from a passenger arriving from Delhi.

pp. 1–3, 7–10

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner arranged for associates to collect the courier parcels and receive cocaine from carriers; it relied, among other material, on WhatsApp data recovered from a seized phone, which allegedly linked the petitioner to the consignments and to other accused persons.

pp. 1–3, 7–10

The petitioner sought bail in an NDPS case under Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29, arguing that the case rested on inadmissible co-accused statements and unreliable or uncertified electronic material. The DRI opposed bail, contending that the evidence and the commercial quantity involved attracted Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

pp. 4–11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner had satisfied the requirements for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the alleged commercial-quantity cocaine seizures and the prosecution material linking him to them.

pp. 11–13

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s challenges to the co-accused statements and the WhatsApp and other documentary material undermined the prosecution case sufficiently to warrant bail.

pp. 4–6, 11–13

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, under which the prosecution alleged offences involving prohibited narcotic substances, and applied Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions on bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

pp. 1, 9–10, 13

The petitioner relied on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, concerning the evidentiary status of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 50; the DRI relied on Ashish v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan.

p. 4, 6, 10

The Court distinguished Bharat Chaudhary on the basis that the petitioner did not dispute that the seized substance was cocaine, and that the case before it involved additional material.

p. 12

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 22 Section 29 Section 67 Section 37

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 63

04Reasoning

The Court assessed the prosecution material as a whole rather than treating the case as resting only on co-accused statements.

pp. 11–12

It noted that the seized phone contained the two courier consignment numbers, the Beck Bagan address and phone number, and bank receipts; the phone was associated with the number 9163675198, which was in regular contact with the number attributed to “Mac.” The Court also noted material indicating contact between the petitioner and Sandeep Kumar during August 2025, including on the dates surrounding the consignments.

pp. 11–12

Considering that material alongside the alleged courier modus operandi and the cocaine seizures, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not overcome Section 37’s rigours. It rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Bharat Chaudhary as distinguishable on the facts.

pp. 12–13