SC Sets Aside Bail in 50 kg Cocaine Case, Sends Matter Back for Fresh Hearing Under Strict NDPS Standards

These appeals arose from two High Court orders granting bail to Director of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd. in prosecutions under the NDPS Act. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had seized about 50.232 kg of cocaine concealed in apple cartons imported from South Africa in October 2022 and alleged that the respondent had placed the orders, coordinated logistics, and oversaw clearance. His statements under Section 67 NDPS allegedly admitted coordination with an overseas associate. Another earlier seizure, 198.1 kg of methamphetamine and 9.035 kg of cocaine on 02.10.2022, was also asserted to involve the same network.

After rejecting bail at the Special Court stage, the High Court granted bail citing lack of knowledge, no antecedents, long custody since October 2022, and trial delay. The Union of India challenged those orders before the Supreme Court.

Issue Raised: Whether the High Court erred in granting bail without recording the mandatory findings under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding prima facie guilt, antecedent involvement, and alleged operational control over the narcotic consignments.

SC Decided: The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to undertake the rigorous statutory analysis demanded by Section 37. It noted that the High Court did not address the respondent’s statements, circumstances suggesting operational control, or the Union’s assertion of his involvement in an earlier massive drug seizure. By concluding that the accused was “not guilty” without evaluating these factors, the High Court crossed into factual appreciation reserved for trial.

The Court therefore set aside both bail orders and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration within four weeks, directing it to properly evaluate the statutory twin conditions, quantity and nature of contraband, alleged antecedent involvement, custody duration, and trial progress. As an interim measure, the respondent was allowed to continue on existing bail terms until the High Court decides afresh.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below