The Supreme Court of India has set aside two orders from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay that had granted bail to Vigin K. Varghese, a Director of M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd., in a case involving the seizure of approximately 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated November 13, 2025, remitted the matter for fresh consideration, holding that the High Court’s reasoning, which included “prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail,” did not properly satisfy the mandatory twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N. V. Anjaria found that the High Court’s orders failed to adequately address the prosecution’s allegations and the statutory embargo on bail for commercial-quantity drug offences.
Background of the Case
The prosecution was initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) after its officers, acting on information, identified a shipping container imported from South Africa on October 5, 2022. The consignment was declared to contain pears for the respondent’s company, M/s Yummito International Foods India Pvt. Ltd.
During examination on October 6 and 7, 2022, in the respondent’s presence, officers allegedly recovered 50 brick-shaped packets weighing approximately 50.232 kilograms, which field-tested positive for cocaine. The DRI alleged that the respondent, in statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, admitted to ordering the consignment and supervising its logistics.
The prosecution also asserted that the respondent was implicated in a separate, earlier seizure on October 2, 2022, involving approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine. The respondent was arrested in October 2022 and his initial bail application was rejected by the Special Court.
High Court’s Bail Orders and Reasoning
The respondent subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, which granted bail via an order dated January 22, 2025. The High Court reasoned that “there was prima facie no material to show that the applicant had knowledge of the cocaine concealed,” noted an “absence of antecedents,” and concluded that “the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.” A second order on March 12, 2025, granted bail in the connected case on grounds of parity.
The Supreme Court judgment noted that the High Court’s orders proceeded on “four planks,” including the “length of custody and perceived delay in conclusion of the trial.”
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for the Union of India, Learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Raghavendra P. Shankar argued that the High Court erred in granting bail for a commercial quantity of narcotics. It was contended that “considerations such as delay of trial and health… cannot override the statutory embargo” of Section 37.
Conversely, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that “prolonged incarceration without trial cannot be justified, particularly when delay is not attributable to the accused.”
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, in its analysis, directly addressed the High Court’s use of trial delay as a justification. The bench observed: “The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail.”
The Supreme Court termed this finding “not a casual observation,” but the “statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)” which must be met through a “careful appraisal of the material.”
The Court found the High Court’s reasoning deficient on two other critical points. First, the High Court’s conclusion of “no knowledge” was “arrived at without discussion of the statements of the respondent and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution” regarding his control over the import.
Second, the bench noted the High Court’s finding of “no antecedents” was made despite the Union’s assertion of the respondent’s involvement in the earlier, larger seizure of Methamphetamine and Cocaine. The Supreme Court stated, “That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.”
The Court reiterated that offences involving commercial quantities “stand on a distinct statutory footing” and Section 37 “enacts a specific embargo” which requires the court to record satisfaction on its twin conditions.
The Decision
Concluding that the High Court had not undertaken the required analysis, the Supreme Court set aside both bail orders. The bench remitted the matters to the High Court for a “fresh consideration” and directed it to pass a reasoned order within four weeks.
The High Court must now re-evaluate the bail prayer keeping in view the “parameters of Section 37,” the “nature and quantity of contraband,” the “role attributed to the respondent,” the “allegation of his involvement in an earlier seizure,” and “the period of custody undergone.”
As an “interim arrangement,” the respondent will retain the benefit of the bail orders until the High Court’s fresh decision.
