Financial trail, tower location, and criminal antecedents justify refusal of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act.

The applicant, Abdul Rahaman, sought bail following his arrest on January 5, 2026, in connection with a case involving the seizure of 30 kg of Yaba tablets (containing Methamphetamine) valued at approximately ₹30.16 crores.

The contraband was discovered in a secret chamber within a vehicle (TR 04D 1758) driven by Jakir Hussain.

The prosecution alleged Rahaman’s involvement based on Call Detail Records (CDR), tower location data placing him near the scene of the raid, and monetary transactions totaling ₹1,65,810 with the principal accused.

The defense argued that the transactions were mere payments for stone chip supply services and that the arrest relied solely on circumstantial links.

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in light of the incriminating material and his past criminal antecedents.

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which mandates a "twin test" for bail: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Section 27A regarding the financing of illicit traffic.

Section 120-B of the IPC regarding conspiracy.

The Court referenced Hanif Khan v. Central Bureau of Narcotics regarding the stricter test for compliance due to the reverse burden of proof in NDPS cases.

The Court rejected the defense’s contention that the case rested solely on tenuous CDR data. It noted that the statement of an employee from a transport agency linked Rahaman to the documentation of the involved vehicle, despite him not being the legal owner.

Furthermore, the court found it significant that Rahaman’s tower location placed him at the scene of the seizure—contradicting his claim of being at his residence—and that the principal accused had directed payments to be made into Rahaman’s bank account.

Applying the rigor of Section 37, the Court observed that the applicant’s "bad antecedents," including two prior NDPS cases involving large quantities of Ganja and Yaba tablets, further militated against the possibility of a "not guilty" finding at this stage.

Consequently, the bail application was rejected.