50 Kg Cocaine Case Bail Set Aside: SC Says High Court Ignored Tough NDPS Requirements

The Supreme Court on November 13, 2025 set aside two orders of the Bombay High Court that granted bail to Vigin K. Varghese, a director of a food import company, in two connected narcotics cases involving the seizure of over 50 kilograms of cocaine imported from South Africa.

Court held that the High Court failed to apply the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which impose strict limits on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria observed that the High Court had not properly addressed the “twin conditions” required by Section 37, namely, that the court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The bench said that these were not routine findings but formed the statutory threshold that must be met before bail could be granted.

Before the Supreme Court, the Union Government challenged two separate bail orders of the Bombay High Court, one dated January 22, 2025, and another dated March 12, 2025, which were passed in favour of Varghese in two distinct prosecutions initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). While the first order concerned a seizure of 50.232 kilograms of cocaine, the second order, passed a few weeks later, extended bail to him in a connected case involving an earlier seizure of 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of cocaine, on the ground of parity.

According to the DRI, both seizures were linked to a common smuggling network allegedly operated by Varghese and his South African associate Mansoor Thachaparamban. The drugs were concealed in containers declared to contain fruit consignments imported through M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., where Varghese served as director. The agency claimed that Varghese had admitted under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to ordering and coordinating the shipments.

Varghese was arrested in October 2022 and remained in custody after a special NDPS court rejected his bail plea in January 2024, citing the statutory embargo under Section 37. The High Court, however, granted him bail in early 2025, holding that there was no evidence of his knowledge of the contraband, that he had no prior criminal record, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The second bail order followed on similar reasoning.

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Raghavendra P. Shankar, challenged both orders, arguing that the High Court had ignored the mandatory preconditions of Section 37(1)(b). He submitted that the High Court’s findings were made without evaluating incriminating material such as call records, seizure memos, and recorded statements that indicated Varghese’s active role in the illegal imports.

Agreeing with the Union’s submissions, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had recorded its conclusions on the absence of knowledge “without discussion of the respondent’s statements and surrounding circumstances.” The bench noted that the High Court failed to consider the prosecution’s claim that Varghese had ordered the consignment, managed logistics, and was present during the container’s inspection.

The bench stressed that bail in NDPS cases cannot be granted on general considerations of delay or personal liberty alone. “Such a finding is not a casual observation; it is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii),” court said, underlining that offences involving commercial quantities “stand on a distinct statutory footing.”

Setting aside both bail orders, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration of Varghese’s bail pleas. The High Court has been directed to pass a reasoned order within four weeks, after addressing the parameters under Section 37 and the prosecution’s material.

As an interim measure, the apex court allowed Varghese to remain on bail until the High Court decides afresh but warned that any breach of conditions or attempt to influence witnesses would justify immediate cancellation.

“The interests of justice would be met if the High Court reconsiders the matter after due appraisal of the record,” the bench concluded, clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Union of India Vs Vigin K Varghese

Judgment Date: November 13, 2025

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria