On 25-09-2025, a bail application filed by a man accused of being involved in smuggling cocaine with an African national was rejected by the Bombay High Court. A Single Judge bench of Justice Dr Neela Gokhale found that the requisites of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were not satisfied and that bail could not be granted to the applicant considering the magnitude of the operations.
The complaint against the applicant was registered with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai Zonal Unit for offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, and 54 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
In the present matter, on 03-04-2023, Accused 1 was intercepted at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport after arriving from Ethiopia and cocaine weighing 1970 grams was recovered from his luggage.
In his statement, accused 1 implicated the applicant and said that he used to work as a cab driver in a travel agency owned by the applicant’s uncle and that he got involved in bringing contraband to India upon the applicant’s insistence used to handle all the logistics of the racket. Accused 1 also gave detailed statements regarding the involvement of the applicant and mentioned that other people were also a part of the web.
Based on said information, the applicant was arrested on 04-04-2023 and in his confession, the applicant implicated one Mr. Morris, an African national. He revealed that he had been in contact with Mr. Morris through WhatsApp calls and chats. Further, the applicant’s wife also confirmed that she had received huge amounts through Mr. Morris in her bank account. Based on the forensic records, WhatsApp chats, and bank statements, the applicant was charge-sheeted.
The applicant filed an application seeking bail before the NDPS Special Judge which was rejected by order dated 07-05-2024. This led to the filing of the present application.
The applicant submitted that his implication was based entirely on the statements given by accused 1 and the applicant’s wife which could not be read in evidence as it was a statement given to the police. Further, he contended that no contraband had been recovered from him and that there was no money trail that led to his bank account. The applicant also sought bail on the ground of long incarceration without charges being framed.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) (Respondent 2) referred to an affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Director of DRI wherein entire facts were narrated. Certain WhatsApp conversations that took place between the applicant and Mr. Morris were also produced before the Court. While resisting the bail of the applicant, the DRI also submitted call logs as per which there were 117 calls between the applicant and accused 1.
Stating the settled law, the Court said that Section 37 of the NDPS Act places certain restrictions on the power of the Court to grant bail and referred to the conditions imposed through Section 37(1). It was further stated that as per the NDPS Act, the Court must be satisfied that the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Court noted that at the stage of considering grant of bail, there was no requirement of weighing evidence to arrive at any finding. All that was required was presence of “reasonable grounds” to show that the applicant had not committed the offence, the Court said.
Reverting to the facts of the case, the Court said that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could not be relied upon. However, the Court found that the WhatsApp chats recovered by the Cyber Forensic Laboratory revealed evidence of the applicant’s involvement in the smuggling syndicate of the contraband substance. The Court also took note of the fact that 1970 grams of cocaine, i.e. approximately 20 times that of the prescribed commercial quantity, had been seized from accused 1.
Thus, the Court found the existence of circumstantial evidence against the applicant and a lack of reasonable grounds to conclude that the applicant had not committed the offence. While rejecting the bail, the Court also said that considering the magnitude of the operations, incarceration of two years cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant.
Appearances:
For Applicant – Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi i/b Mr. Pravada Raut
For Respondents – Ms. Manisha R. Tidke, Mr. Saket R. Ketkar
