NDPS | Long Incarceration Alone Is No Ground For Bail Where Prima Facie Involvement Exists In International Drug Syndicate – Bombay High Court Refuses Bail In Cocaine Smuggling Case

“There is other circumstantial evidence which dissuades this Court from exercising discretion in favour of the Applicant… It cannot be concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant has not committed the offence.” - Bombay High Court (Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale) dismissed a bail application filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) rejecting the plea on the ground that the stringent requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had not been met.

The Court was considering whether prima facie material existed to indicate the applicant’s innocence in an alleged international drug trafficking operation involving the smuggling of commercial quantity of cocaine (1970 grams). The Court held that the evidence, including WhatsApp chats, forensic mobile analysis, call logs (117 calls), and bank records, pointed to the applicant’s active participation in the logistics and financial chain of the narcotics operation.

“WhatsApp Chats, Forensic Evidence, and Financial Trail Show Active Involvement”: Court Finds Prima Facie Material Against Bail Applicant

The case arose from an operation led by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 3 April 2023, when Imran Ahmed Mohammed (Accused No. 1) was intercepted at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), Mumbai, arriving from Ethiopia with 1970 grams of cocaine concealed in his luggage. His statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act implicated the present applicant, Syed Sameer Hussain, as the person coordinating logistics and facilitating the smuggling process.

While noting that confessional statements under Section 67 are inadmissible as per the settled law, the Court underscored that the prosecution's case did not rest solely on such statements. Rather, the investigating agency placed reliance on independent and corroborative digital evidence. The forensic examination of mobile phones revealed deleted and recovered WhatsApp chats, allegedly between the applicant, the co-accused, and a foreign national named “Mr. Morris,” said to be orchestrating the operations from abroad.

The Court noted: “The WhatsApp chats recovered by the Cyber Forensic Laboratory from the mobile phones used by the Applicant throw up evidence of his involvement in the smuggling syndicate… The transcripts are all related to the planning of their operations and logistics including booking of flights, hotels, tutoring other boys in respect of answering questions of enforcement agencies, location of delivery of contraband substance, etc.”

Further, the Court highlighted 117 recorded calls between the applicant and Accused No.1, alongside others, as a clear indicator of continuous and coordinated involvement in the alleged criminal network.

Financial Transactions Through Wife’s Account Strengthen Prosecution's Case

Another significant aspect considered by the Court was the bank account statements of the applicant’s wife, Sakina Begum, who admitted to receiving substantial remittances from Mr. Morris. The funds were allegedly used by the applicant for arranging travel and accommodation for the co-accused.

As per the Court:

“The bank account statement of Sakina also shows receipts of the amounts from the African national called Mr. Morris. This amount is withdrawn by the Applicant to meet expenses relating to the Accused No.1… Thus, dehors the statements made by the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there is other circumstantial evidence which dissuades this Court from exercising discretion.”

NDPS Act’s Section 37 Threshold Not Satisfied – Bail Denied

The Court reiterated the statutory limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which create a double hurdle for bail in cases involving commercial quantity: the Court must be satisfied that (1) reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused is not guilty, and (2) he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

After evaluating the digital and financial evidence, the Court held that the first requirement had not been met:

“It cannot be concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant has not committed the offence… Considering the magnitude of the operations and the role of the Applicant, the length of incarceration which is approximately two years, by itself cannot be the consideration as a persuasive ground to grant bail.”

Thus, the rigors of Section 37 were held to remain unshaken, and the application for bail was accordingly rejected.

Importantly, while denying bail, the Court clarified that its observations are prima facie in nature and shall not influence the trial:

“It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the present order.”

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025