TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditya Krishna, Adv., Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals, being Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025, are directed against the orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granting bail to the respondent accused Vigin K. Varghese on prosecutions instituted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act". The first order, rendered in Criminal Bail Application No. 1416 of 2024, relates to the seizure of approximately 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine imported from South Africa in the name of M/s Yummito International Foods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2022. 5. Statements of the respondent came to be recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein it is alleged that he admitted to ordering the consignment from a South African supplier, to having imported the goods using the Import Export Code of his firm, and for supervising the clearance and delivery operations through his logistics handlers. The Directorate further alleges that he identified one Mansoor Thachaparamban as his overseas collaborator who arranged the shipments and that the respondent described the commercial arrangement and coordination undertaken for the consignments. 6. The Directorate also asserts that the present seizure was not isolated. On 02.10.2022, in a separate operation, approximately 198.1 kilograms of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. A subsequent order dated 12.03.2025 passed on a later bail application arising from the same chain of events proceeded on similar reasoning and extended the benefit of bail by invoking parity and reiterating absence of knowledge and prolonged custody. The Union of India has assailed both these orders in the present appeals which have been directed to be heard together. 10. Shri Raghavendra P. Shankar, Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant submits that High Court has erred in granting bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 29 and 30 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. It is urged that the statutory bar under Section 37 was not properly applie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the enforcement officers and lack independent corroboration. The respondent emphasizes that he has been in custody since October 2022 and that the trial having not commenced in real earnest, it is unlikely to happen in the near future. 13. It is contended that the High Court exercised sound discretion by harmonizing the rigour of Section 37 with the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial cannot be justified, particularly when delay is not attributable to the accused. The respondent submits that he has cooperated throughout the investigation; has no prior criminal antecedents; and, poses no risk of absconding or tampering with the evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., while granting bail, the High Court recorded that there were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before this Court includes the Union's assertion that the respondent had already been apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly imported through the same channel only days before the present seizure. That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders. 17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nments. The omission to consider these factors bears directly upon the statutory satisfaction required by Section 37(1)(b). 20. We are of the view that, in the facts of this case, it would not be appropriate for this Court at the threshold stage itself to render findings on whether there are or not reasonable grounds, for believing that the respondent is not guilty, or on whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. That factual assessment, which the statute requires to be made and recorded with reasons, is one that the High Court must undertake upon a complete and fair appraisal of the rival contentions based on materials placed before it. 21. In our considered view, the interests of justice would be met if the impugned ....