The Delhi High Court has held that where a case under the NDPS Act involves recovery of commercial quantity and the prosecution alleges a coordinating or facilitating role under Section 29, the rigours of Section 37 are attracted notwithstanding the absence of any direct recovery from the accused. The expression “reasonable grounds” under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) requires credible and plausible material going beyond mere prima facie grounds, and the prosecution material must be assessed cumulatively rather than in isolation.
The Court explained that while a statement under Section 67 cannot be treated as a confessional statement, independent circumstantial material, including statements of co-accused, statements of public witnesses, CDR and tower-location records, and flight records, remains admissible for assessing the twin conditions. The plea of parity is not mechanical and depends on a comparative assessment of the role and material against each accused. Prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation and filing of the complaint are relevant but cannot override the statutory mandate of Section 37 where the twin conditions remain unsatisfied.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the submission of counsel that the applicant was neither involved in the transportation nor storage of the contraband and that no recovery was effected from him or at his instance could not be accepted as a ground to exclude the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court reiterated that, in a case involving commercial quantity, the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not be diluted on account of absence of recovery from the accused.
The Court observed that the fact that the applicant was not alleged to have physically possessed or transported the contraband did not, by itself, answer the allegation under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which concerned abetment and criminal conspiracy in relation to offences under the NDPS Act. The question at this stage was whether the material relied upon by the prosecution furnished reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant had no connection with the alleged conspiracy. The Court noted that the legal position with regard to the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was well settled, and placed reliance upon State of M.P. v. Kajad [(2001) 7 SCC 673], where the Supreme Court held that a person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more shall generally not be released on bail, and that negation of bail was the rule and its grant an exception.
The Court also observed that the material relied upon by the prosecution was required to be considered in its entirety and the individual circumstances could not be viewed in isolation. As regards the contention of the counsel that the mobile number could not have been used by the applicant during the relevant period, as the SIM corresponding to the said number was reflected as having been activated on 16 October 2024, the Court observed that the contention did not appear to be borne out from the CDR material placed on record. The CDR record reflected usage of the said number during March 2024, and the activation date 16 October 2024, as explained by the NCB, related to re-issuance of the SIM after the number had remained inactive for a continuous period.
Also read UGC 2026 Regulations Under Reconsideration’: Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court
The Court further observed that the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s travel to Gujarat also merited consideration. The material placed on record indicated that the applicant travelled to Ahmedabad along with Gurbani Talwar by an Indigo flight on 22 March 2024 and that a return journey had been booked for the following day. The prosecution, however, relied upon the circumstance that the applicant did not undertake the scheduled return journey and instead returned to Delhi by an earlier flight along with Rishi Sachdeva and Amit Mathur. No satisfactory explanation, at this stage, had been brought on record as to why the applicant, if his visit was solely in connection with his stated professional commitments, did not avail of the return journey which had already been booked. This circumstance assumed significance when considered with the statement of Gurbani Talwar, who had accompanied the applicant and had stated about his movements during the visit, including his following of a location on the mobile phone and proceeding towards the indicated location.
Further, the Court emphasised that the statement recorded under Section 67 could not be relied upon as a confessional statement against the accused even at the stage of bail. The assessment under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had, therefore, to be undertaken on the basis of the material which was legally capable of being considered, without placing reliance upon the statement under Section 67, NDPS Act, as a confessional statement.
The Court further observed that the prosecution case concerned an alleged organised drug-trafficking operation having international linkages, and that the applicant’s role extended beyond a mere incidental association, including his travel to Dubai, his subsequent visit to Mehsana for locating the consignment and his interaction at the factory where the consignment was stated to be lying. The Court also observed that the period of custody undergone by the applicant and completion of investigation were undoubtedly relevant considerations, but could not be viewed in isolation from the nature of the allegations, the material on record and the statutory scheme. Having regard to the punishment prescribed for the principal offences alleged, which may extend to 20 years, the Court was of the view that the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, by itself, did not furnish sufficient ground for grant of bail when the requirements of Section 37 remained unsatisfied.
Also read
Briefly, the applicant, Amrik Singh Bedi, approached the Delhi High Court by way of a second application seeking regular bail in connection with a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 8, 21, 23, 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. His first bail application had earlier been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh before the trial court.
The prosecution case, as emerging from the complaint and the material on record, was that on 11 November 2024, the Narcotics Control Bureau received secret information regarding a parcel lying at the Smart Logistics Courier Office, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, suspected to contain narcotic substance and destined for Australia. Upon examination of the said parcel, 1.015 kilograms of cocaine was allegedly recovered. Thereafter, on 13 November 2024, on receipt of information regarding a person coming to collect the said consignment from the warehouse of Trans Safe Global Express, the NCB team apprehended one Shivraj, stated to be the driver of co-accused Lokesh Chopra. The investigation thereafter led the NCB to co-accused Avadhesh Yadav @ Gopi, from whose residence, upon a search conducted on 14 November 2024, 81.515 kilograms of cocaine was allegedly recovered.
As regards the role attributed to the present applicant, the prosecution relied upon the statement of co-accused Rishi Sachdeva recorded during investigation. According to the said statement, Rishi Sachdeva, along with the applicant, one Amit Mathur and one Navjot Kaur, had travelled to Dubai and met co-accused Pawan Thakur @ Pinchu. During the said meeting, co-accused Pawan Thakur allegedly informed them about a consignment stated to be lying at a factory in Mehsana, Gujarat, and that an Apple AirTag had been affixed to the said consignment. The applicant thereafter allegedly travelled to Mehsana, Gujarat on 22 March 2024 and, according to the prosecution, located the factory where the consignment was suspected to be lying.
Also read ‘Whatever Has Been Done Shall Not Be Disrupted’: SC Hears Challenge to CBSE Three-Language Policy
The prosecution further alleged that, during his visit to Mehsana, the applicant entered the factory premises and interacted with the factory manager, Mahesh Sharma. It was alleged that the applicant introduced himself as “Bobby Walia” and sought information regarding the consignment. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of one Gurbani Talwar, who was working with the applicant and had accompanied him to Gujarat, wherein she was stated to have disclosed that the applicant was following a location on his mobile phone, stopped the vehicle in the factory area and thereafter went towards the indicated location. The consignment was subsequently collected on 24 March 2024 by co-accused Avadhesh Yadav @ Gopi, pursuant to instructions received from Pawan Thakur @ Pinchu. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he was stated to have disclosed that he had received Rs. 12 lakhs in cash in connection with the work allegedly undertaken by him.
The applicant was arrested on 9 December 2024 and had remained in custody thereafter, except for the period of 45 days during which he was enlarged on interim bail. His earlier application for regular bail came to be rejected by the Special Judge, and the subsequent application before the Special Court was also dismissed on 27 January 2026. The first bail application before the High Court was dismissed as withdrawn, and the applicant thereafter approached the Court by way of the present second application for regular bail.
