Narcotics Control Bureau vs Mohit Aggarwal
Background
Acting on secret information, the Narcotics Control Bureau intercepted a parcel containing 50,000 mis-declared Tramadol tablets meant for delivery in Ludhiana. The person who booked the parcel disclosed that he had purchased the tablets from the respondent, Mohit Aggarwal, without any bill or prescription, and that the respondent in turn had sourced them from another accused. Acting on the respondent's own disclosures, NCB officials raided a godown and recovered a huge cache of psychotropic tablets, injections and syrup, and the respondent, in his statement, admitted to illegally trading in these drugs. He was arrested, his bail applications before the Special Judge (NDPS) were rejected twice, but the Delhi High Court subsequently granted him bail, reasoning that no incriminating material was recovered directly from his residence. The NCB appealed this to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court explained that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict additional conditions on bail for commercial-quantity drug offences: the court must be satisfied there are "reasonable grounds" (meaning credible and substantial grounds, not mere prima facie ones) for believing the accused is not guilty, and that he is unlikely to reoffend while on bail. While the Court agreed that the respondent's own confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was inadmissible per the earlier ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, it held that the High Court had wrongly ignored substantial independent circumstantial evidence, including that it was the respondent's own disclosures that led the NCB to the co-accused's godown and the massive drug haul, and mobile call records showing contact between the accused persons. The Supreme Court held that the "reasonable grounds" threshold under Section 37 had not been met, allowed the NCB's appeal, quashed the bail order, cancelled the respondent's bail bonds, and directed he be taken back into custody.
Lesson Learnt
For serious commercial-quantity narcotics offences, courts must apply the strict twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act before granting bail, even if a confession is legally inadmissible, other circumstantial evidence (such as the accused's own disclosures leading to further recoveries) can still be enough to deny bail, and the mere absence of drugs found directly on the accused's person is not sufficient to presume innocence at the bail stage.