Anticipatory Bail Not a Shield in Narcotics Cases Involving Financial Nexus: Bombay High Court Dismisses Pre-Arrest Bail Plea of Temple Priest Linked to Drug Racket

“No Blanket Immunity for Mere 'Consumer' Label When Money Trails and Conspiracies Emerge”, Bombay High Court rejecting an anticipatory bail plea filed under the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), highlighting the inviolable statutory barriers under Section 37 of the Act when prima facie involvement in drug trafficking is revealed. Justice Advait M. Sethna, hearing the matter, ruled that “where there are clear financial links with key accused in a narcotics trafficking network, and with substantial evidence pointing to complicity beyond consumption, the grant of anticipatory bail cannot be countenanced.”

The case originated from Crime No. 222 of 2025 registered by the Tamalwadi Police Station, Dharashiv, wherein 45 grams of Mephedrone—a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act—was recovered from three accused during a highway interception on 14th February 2025. While the seized quantity was marginally below the commercial threshold (50 grams), the police investigation unearthed a broader network involving multiple accused. The applicant, arrayed as accused No. 31 in the charge-sheet filed on 16th April 2025, sought anticipatory bail contending his innocence and denying any involvement in trafficking, claiming he was at worst a consumer under Section 27 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor A.V. Lavte, vehemently opposed the application, arguing that significant prima facie material, including call data records (CDR), financial transaction trails, and statements of independent witnesses, demonstrated the applicant’s active financial engagement with the main accused engaged in trafficking. The prosecution further asserted that custodial interrogation remained essential to dismantle the underlying network and unearth the money trail.

Justice Sethna observed at the outset: “The judicial discipline demanded by Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not limited to cases where physical recovery from the accused takes place. The embargo applies with equal force when financial or conspiratorial involvement is prima facie evident.”

On maintainability, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 1699, which clarified that the rigours of Section 37 operate even at the stage of anticipatory bail. Referring to the settled dictum, the Court stressed, “Custodial interrogation becomes vital to dismantle the tentacles of a trafficking network, especially when financial links point towards active complicity.”

Addressing the applicant’s primary contention of being a mere consumer, Justice Sethna unequivocally rejected the plea:

“The existence of multiple financial transactions with prime traffickers, unexplained monetary exchanges, and consistent call records render the applicant’s claim of innocence unsustainable, at least at this preliminary stage.”

The applicant had placed heavy reliance on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Stefan Mueller v. State of Maharashtra (2007), arguing that an offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, with a maximum punishment of one year, was bailable. The Court however found this argument misplaced in light of more recent authoritative pronouncements. Justice Sethna held:

“The position in Stefan Mueller has been unsettled by subsequent judgments, including the decision in Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India (2020), which correctly followed the Constitution Bench ruling in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), clarifying that all offences under NDPS Act, including Section 27, are cognizable and non-bailable unless decided otherwise by a Larger Bench.”

Further, the Court took judicial notice of the pending reference before a Larger Bench in Karishma Prakash v. Union of India (2023) on this very controversy. It therefore ruled:

“In view of the binding precedent in Baldev Singh and Rhea Chakraborty, the plea of the applicant that Section 27 is bailable must fail.”

Examining the factual matrix, the Court noted the applicant’s attempts to attribute the financial transactions to a firecracker business as “a self-serving narrative devoid of corroborative evidence,” particularly when weighed against the prosecution’s seizure of corroborative statements from independent witnesses and voluminous charge-sheet documentation running into 10,000 pages.

The Court reminded itself of the Supreme Court’s observations in Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999), reiterating the societal harm caused by narcotics trafficking:

“Those dealing in narcotics are instruments of death, targeting innocent youth, and their release risks perpetuation of this menace.”

Concluding decisively, the Court held: “The complexities of the alleged financial trail, the documented call records, and the statements of independent witnesses create reasonable grounds to suspect involvement beyond personal consumption. The legal threshold under Section 37 is not met by the applicant. Given the sensitive nature of drug trafficking cases and the need to dismantle financial conduits, this Court cannot dilute the legislative mandate by granting anticipatory bail in the present circumstances.”

Dismissing the application, the Court, however, preserved the applicant’s right to approach the trial court for regular bail upon surrender, stating: “It is open to the applicant to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.”

This judgment sends a strong message reaffirming judicial caution in NDPS Act cases, especially where financial involvement in drug trafficking is unearthed. It reiterates the principle that mere classification as ‘consumer’ does not immunize an accused from stringent bail considerations when wider conspiratorial links are demonstrated through credible material.

Date of Decision: 14th July 2025