The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging an order passed by the Delhi High Court in proceedings arising out of an NDPS case, wherein adverse observations were made against the petitioner at the stage of bail.

The matter was taken up by a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India, with Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra appearing for the petitioner. The plea assailed the High Court order on the ground that it contained detailed and damaging observations on merits, despite there being no recovery of contraband or direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence.

Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner was not in India during the relevant period and was residing abroad, where he was employed in the hospitality sector. It was argued that there was no recovery, no money trail, no call detail records, and no WhatsApp or electronic evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged narcotics syndicate. The prosecution case, it was contended, was founded primarily on disclosure statements of co-accused, which are not admissible in evidence, particularly at the stage of bail.

It was further submitted that allegations of meetings and coordination abroad were factually incorrect. The petitioner had suffered a serious accident during the relevant period, resulting in damage to his mobile phone, facts supported by contemporaneous records and a report lodged with local authorities. The phone was subsequently handed over to the investigating agency, which allegedly found no incriminating material for the relevant period.

Referring to the impugned order, senior counsel argued that while the allegations involved large quantities of contraband recovered from other accused, the case against the petitioner was tenuous. It was contended that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of bail proceedings by making categorical observations that could seriously prejudice the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.

Taking note of the submissions, the Supreme Court observed that the plea before the High Court for cancellation of bail was rightly allowed. The Court however granted interim protection to surrender within 1 week to the petitioner and clarified that the impugned observations shall not influence the trial or future proceedings.