The Supreme Court ruled that prolonged custody and trial delays are not enough to bypass the strict bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for commercial-quantity drug offences, overturning the Bombay High Court’s earlier bail orders.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has set aside two bail orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in favor of Vigin K. Varghese, Director of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., in a major drug-trafficking case involving the seizure of over 50 kilograms of Cocaine. In a judgment dated November 13, 2025, the apex court remitted both matters back to the High Court for fresh consideration, holding that the earlier bail orders failed to comply with the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N. V. Anjaria observed that the High Court’s reliance on “prolonged incarceration” and “likelihood of delay in trial” was insufficient to bypass the statutory embargo on bail in narcotics cases involving commercial quantities.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Revisit “Hira Singh” Judgment on NDPS Act Drug Quantity Rules
Background
The case originated from a DRI investigation into a container imported from South Africa on October 5, 2022. Although declared to contain pears for Yummito International Foods, the container allegedly concealed 50 brick-shaped packets weighing 50.232 kilograms, which field-tested positive for Cocaine. The seizure was made on October 6–7, 2022, reportedly in the presence of Varghese.
The DRI also linked the respondent to an earlier major seizure on October 2, 2022, involving 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine, further intensifying the prosecution’s allegations.
Varghese’s statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act allegedly included admissions regarding ordering the consignment and overseeing its logistics.
Bombay High Court’s Bail Orders
The Bombay High Court granted bail through an order dated January 22, 2025, holding that:
- there was “prima facie no material” showing the accused had knowledge of the hidden narcotics,
- there was an absence of criminal antecedents, and
- the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
A subsequent order dated March 12, 2025 granted bail in the connected case based on parity.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court took strong exception to the High Court’s approach. The bench held:
1. Delay in Trial Is Not Enough Under Section 37
The High Court had used prolonged incarceration as a ground to satisfy the statutory requirement of believing the accused is “not guilty”, a step the Supreme Court called legally unsustainable.
2. “No Knowledge” Finding Unsupported
The High Court failed to evaluate:
- the accused’s statements,
- his role in importation, and
- the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
3. Non-consideration of Alleged Prior Involvement
The Union of India had cited Varghese’s involvement in the earlier large-scale seizure, but this claim was ignored in the bail orders.
The bench reiterated that commercial quantity cases under the NDPS Act carry a strict statutory bar on bail, and courts must affirmatively record their satisfaction regarding the accused’s innocence and risk of reoffending.
The Supreme Court set aside both bail orders and remitted the matters to the Bombay High Court for:
- fresh hearing, and
- a reasoned order within four weeks.
The High Court must now reconsider the bail applications based on:
- the parameters under Section 37,
- the quantity and nature of the contraband,
- the accused’s alleged role,
- previous involvement in narcotics seizures, and
- the duration of custody.
Despite setting aside the orders, the Supreme Court directed that the respondent shall continue to enjoy bail until the High Court issues its fresh decision.
Case Title:
UNION OF INDIA VERSUS VIGIN K. VARGHESE
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 7768 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NDPS Act
