The Supreme Court on Thursday, the air felt slightly tense as a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N. V. Anjaria took up the Union of India’s challenge to two Bombay High Court orders granting bail to businessman Vigin K. Varghese. The matter, rooted in the seizure of a staggering 50.232 kg of cocaine concealed in fruit cartons imported from South Africa, had already drawn considerable attention within enforcement circles.
By the time the hearing wrapped up, it was clear the bench was not convinced with the manner in which the High Court had granted bail.
“The High Court has not examined the statutory requirements in the proper perspective,” the bench noted while pronouncing its order.
Background
According to the prosecution narrative, DRI officers received specific intelligence in October 2022 about a refrigerated container arriving at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port. The importer on paper was M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., where Varghese served as a director.
When officers opened the container, they allegedly found 50 brick-shaped packets, each wrapped neatly and tucked inside cartons of green apples. Field tests, the DRI claimed, confirmed the presence of cocaine. Soon after, the agency recorded statements from Varghese under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, asserting that he had admitted to handling the shipment and coordinating with an overseas associate.
What added further weight to the allegations was a separate seizure just days earlier, involving 198.1 kg of methamphetamine and over 9 kg of cocaine, reportedly connected to the same network. This fact, the Union argued, deserved serious consideration when deciding bail.
Varghese, however, had remained in custody since October 2022, and the trial had barely moved. This was one of the reasons why the Bombay High Court granted him bail earlier this year, observing that the prosecution lacked direct evidence of his knowledge of the concealed narcotics.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court did not mince words on Thursday. Justice Aravind Kumar, reading out the judgment, remarked that the High Court had reached certain conclusions “without addressing critical material” placed by the prosecution.
The bench stressed that bail under the NDPS Act cannot be treated like a routine matter. Section 37, which creates a stringent barrier for accused in commercial-quantity cases, requires courts to record clear satisfaction that:
- the accused may not be guilty, and
- the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
According to the bench, these twin conditions had not been carefully analysed. The judges specifically pointed out that the High Court failed to discuss the respondent’s recorded statements, his alleged role in supervising the import process, and the earlier massive drug seizure linked to the same network.
“A finding on reasonable grounds of innocence cannot be made casually,” the bench observed.
The Court also noted that delay in trial, while certainly a concern, cannot overshadow statutory restrictions applicable to commercial-quantity drug cases unless supported by proper judicial reasoning.
Court’s Decision
At the end of the hearing, the Supreme Court set aside both High Court orders dated 22 January 2025 and 12 March 2025. The matter has been remitted back to the Bombay High Court, which must now reconsider the bail plea afresh.
The bench also issued a time-bound direction:
The High Court must pass a reasoned order within four weeks, after hearing both sides and applying Section 37 of the NDPS Act in full.
Interestingly, the Court allowed the accused to continue on interim bail during this period, but with a stern warning. Any attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, the judges said, would allow the prosecution to seek immediate cancellation before the High Court.
And with a final clarification that the Supreme Court has expressed no opinion on the merits the bench disposed of the appeals.
Case Title:- Union of India vs. Vigin K. Varghese
