Bail Cannot Be Granted in Cases of Commercial Drug Trafficking: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Alleged International Drug Cartel Member

In a significant ruling on bail under the NDPS Act, the Delhi High Court on January 28, 2025, refused to grant bail to Mohit Jaiswal, who was arrested for allegedly being part of an international drug cartel involved in trafficking commercial quantities of MDMA.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, while dismissing the bail application in Mohit Jaiswal v. CBI, emphasized that commercial quantity drug cases invoke the stringent twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which the applicant failed to satisfy. The Court noted:

“Given the overwhelming prima facie evidence of conscious possession, the large quantity of seized contraband, and the ongoing investigation into an international drug syndicate, this Court finds no merit in granting bail at this stage.”

"Commercial Quantity & Conscious Possession: Applicant Fails to Satisfy NDPS Act’s Twin Conditions for Bail"
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Mohit Jaiswal in connection with FIR No. RC2202023E0016, registered under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The case stemmed from an Interpol tip-off regarding three suspicious parcels from Belgium, suspected to contain psychotropic substances.

Upon investigation, the authorities seized 1880 grams of MDMA, far exceeding the commercial quantity threshold of 10 grams under the NDPS Act. Jaiswal, allegedly acting on behalf of an international syndicate, attempted to collect one of the parcels under a false identity and fled upon sensing law enforcement presence.

His bail plea under Section 439 CrPC was opposed by the CBI, which cited strong prima facie evidence of his active involvement in drug trafficking and the risk of him absconding or tampering with the investigation.

"Mere Denial of Knowledge of Drugs Cannot Displace Evidence of Conscious Possession"
The Court rejected Jaiswal’s primary defense that he was merely collecting the parcel on behalf of his brother-in-law, Vinod Jaiswal, and was unaware of its contents. The CBI countered that Jaiswal actively inquired about the parcels, attempted to collect them, and exhibited suspicious behavior, including covering his face and fleeing upon spotting CBI officials.

The Court held: “The applicant’s conduct—inquiring about the parcel, attempting to collect it under a false identity, and fleeing when intercepted—establishes prima facie evidence of conscious possession under the NDPS Act.”

It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which clarified that conscious possession includes both knowledge and control over contraband.

"Stringent Bail Conditions Under Section 37 NDPS Act Not Met"
Given the seizure of a commercial quantity of MDMA (1880 grams), the Court noted that bail could only be granted if both twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act were satisfied:

•    The Court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence.
•    The accused must not be likely to commit another offence while on bail.
The Court observed: “The material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant was knowingly involved in the possession and attempted collection of contraband. He has failed to demonstrate that he is not guilty of the offence.”

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Jaiswal’s co-accused—his brother-in-law Vinod Jaiswal and his driver Anil Kumar—were absconding, increasing the likelihood of him evading justice.

“The ongoing investigation into the larger international drug trafficking conspiracy justifies continued judicial custody.”

Distinguishing Sunil Kumar Case – No Parity in Bail
Jaiswal relied on Sunil Kumar v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, where bail was granted on the ground that the accused was unaware of the contraband. However, the Court distinguished the present case, holding:

“Unlike in Sunil Kumar’s case, where the accused had no knowledge of the contraband, the applicant’s conduct in the present case demonstrates a clear attempt to receive and possess the illicit substance. Thus, the facts do not warrant parity in bail.”

"Ongoing Investigation Into International Drug Syndicate—Bail Would Undermine Probe"
The CBI strongly opposed bail, citing the applicant’s alleged involvement in an international drug syndicate and the need for custodial interrogation to unravel the larger conspiracy.

The Court agreed, holding: “Releasing the applicant at this stage would seriously affect the ongoing investigation, as he may inform other conspirators or attempt to flee.”

"Speedy Trial Concerns Do Not Override Public Interest in Drug Cases"
Jaiswal also argued for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration since his arrest on July 13, 2023. However, the Court held that the complexity of the investigation justified continued detention.

“While the right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution, the ongoing investigation into organized drug trafficking justifies continued judicial custody. There is no undue delay attributable to the prosecution.”

Conclusion: Bail Denied—"Larger Public Interest Demands a Strict Approach to Drug Trafficking"
The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the bail plea, reiterating the seriousness of drug offences and the societal harm caused by narcotics trafficking.

The Court held: “The gravity of the offence, the overwhelming prima facie evidence, and the potential risk to the ongoing investigation all weigh against granting bail at this stage. The applicant has failed to meet the strict criteria under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”

Thus, Mohit Jaiswal will remain in judicial custody as the investigation into the international drug syndicate continues.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s strict approach towards narcotics offences, ensuring that drug traffickers do not escape legal scrutiny under the guise of bail.
 

Date of Decision: 28 January 2025