Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking pre-arrest bail for offences under Sections 8 (c), 22(c), 23(b), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), Amit Mahajan, J., granted bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO and conditions as laid down by the Court.
The Court remarked that when there is no material to link the applicants with the recovery of the commercial quantity of contrabands, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
On 19-04-2023, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received specific intelligence suggesting that 28 parcels lying at the DTDC Express Limited office in Samalkha, New Delhi, were suspected to contain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Acting on this information, a team was formed, and a seizure operation was conducted. From the search, authorities recovered 807 LSD blots and 44.70 grams of cocaine from the 28 parcels. Notably, all 28 parcels bore the same sender’s name i.e., AASK & Associates, with a Gurugram address and a common mobile number. Among these, two parcels became particularly significant. One parcel was found to contain 25 LSD blots (0.41 grams) and 1.29 grams of cocaine and was addressed to applicant Jyotika Singh, also carrying the mobile number of applicant and another parcel containing 10 LSD blots (0.17 grams), bore the name, address, and phone number of applicant.
During further investigation, the NCB arrested one allegedly to be the mastermind and sender of the parcels, on 20-07-2023. On examining his phone, booking slips for two parcels were recovered. One slip was allegedly sent to applicant 2 on 16-04-2023, and another was allegedly sent to applicant 3 on 17-04-2023.
Counsel for applicants 1 and 2 vehemently denied any involvement in the offence and argued that no contraband was ever recovered from the applicants themselves. The mere appearance of their names and contact details on seized parcels was not sufficient to link them with drug trafficking. It was further asserted that their names and numbers might have been misused, and they had no knowledge of the parcels. They had, moreover, fully cooperated with the investigation.
Counsel for applicant 3 similarly contended that the prosecution had failed to establish any incriminating evidence against him. It was pointed out that even the name on the parcel was mentioned which was not his correct name. He too argued that his details had been misused and that no live link had been established between him and the alleged contraband.
On the other hand, Counsel for the NCB opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, stressing that the parcels addressed to the applicants contained commercial quantities of LSD and cocaine. They argued that the presence of the applicants’ names, addresses, and phone numbers on the parcels created a prima facie link, thereby attracting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts the grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantities unless the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Further, the recovery of booking slips from the phone of the accused allegedly showing that the applicants had previously received similar parcels prior to the present seizure, was presented as corroborative evidence of their involvement. After a careful review of the submissions and materials on record, the Court noted that the primary allegation against the applicants was the presence of their details on parcels from which contraband had been recovered. However, no direct recovery had been made by the applicants themselves. Additionally, despite the seizure of their mobile devices, the investigating agency had failed to trace any financial transactions, communications, or digital evidence (such as chats or call logs) that could connect the applicants to the seized contraband or the alleged conspiracy.
With respect to the booking slips recovered from accused phone, the Court observed that the fact that the applicants’ details may have appeared on those slips was insufficient to demonstrate a live nexus, especially when the actual recovery of such prior parcels was not made, and their content remained unknown. The Court emphasized that mere mention of a name and address on a courier package could not lead to the conclusion of criminal culpability in the absence of corroborative evidence, particularly when the applicants had denied receiving the parcels and joined the investigation. The possibility of misuse of the applicants’ identities could not be ruled out at this preliminary stage.
Importantly, the Court held that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act would not apply in the absence of any material establishing a link between the applicants and the commercial quantity of contraband, a position supported by judicial precedents. Further, considering that the investigation had concluded, and several co-accused had already been granted bail, the Court found that the continued threat of arrest served no legal or investigational purpose. The likelihood of early conclusion of the trial was bleak, and the applicants had cooperated with the investigation even prior to being granted interim protection.
The Court held that the circumstances of the case did not justify custodial interrogation or arrest of the applicants. It found the evidence insufficient at this stage to establish their involvement or satisfy the threshold of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Thus, the Court granted bail to the applicants, in the event of arrest on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, on the following conditions:
a. The applicants shall join and cooperate with the investigation as and when directed by the IO;
b. The applicants will not leave the boundaries of the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court;
c. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
d. The applicants shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed;
e. The applicants shall give their mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep their mobile phones switched on at all times;
f. The applicants shall provide the address of their residence to the IO/SHO and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO.
[Joy Mitra v. Narcotics Control Bureau, BAIL APPLN. 372/2024, decided on 29-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Mr. Vivek Kumar and Dr. Priyanka, Advocates for applicants
Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC (through VC) Mr. Sachin Kumar, IO, NCB. Ms. Shelly Dixit, Advocate for NCB
