Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal

1. Case Title & Citation

The case is titled Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, decided by the Supreme Court of India in July 2022.

 The official citation is (2022) SCC Online SC 891.

It arose out of two criminal appeals filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) challenging an order of the Delhi High Court, which had granted post-arrest bail to Mohit Aggarwal, accused in a major case involving the trafficking of psychotropic substances.

2. Court Name & Bench

• Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
• Bench: Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, and Justice Hima Kohli (who authored the judgment).
• Bench Type: Three-judge bench (Division Bench).

The matter was reportable, meaning the judgment carried precedential value and was deemed important for future reference.

3. Date of Judgment

The judgment was delivered on 19 July 2022.

4. Parties Involved

• Appellant: The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), India’s premier agency responsible for enforcing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
• Respondent: Mohit Aggarwal, accused of being part of a drug trafficking racket involving large-scale contraband.

The matter essentially revolved around the legality and correctness of granting bail to the respondent in light of the stringent provisions under the NDPS Act.

5. Facts of the Case

The factual background is crucial to understanding why this case reached the Supreme Court:

1. On 9 January 2020, NCB officials received secret information that a suspicious parcel booked from Agra (U.P.) by one Gaurav Kumar Aggarwal to be delivered to Manoj Kumar in Ludhiana (Punjab) was lying at the godown of a courier company at Village Samalkha, Kapashera, New Delhi.
2. Acting on this tip, the NCB team raided the godown and identified the parcel in the presence of independent witnesses from the courier staff. Upon opening, it was found to contain 50,000 Tramadol tablets weighing 20 kg. These were misdeclared as surgical items and had no supporting bills or prescriptions. Seizure proceedings were initiated.
3. The consignor, Gaurav Kumar Aggarwal, gave a voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, confessing that he had purchased the tablets from Mohit Aggarwal (the respondent) without any bills or prescriptions. He also revealed that Mohit had sourced the drugs from Promod Jaipuria alias Davinder Khandelwal, a resident of Jaipur.
4. Based on this disclosure, raids were carried out at Promod Jaipuria’s godown. A huge cache of narcotics was seized, including:
   • 6,64,940 tablets of psychotropic substances (Tramadol, Zolpidem, Alprazolam, etc.) weighing about 328.82 kg.
   • 1,400 Pazinc injections (1.4 litres).
   • 80 bottles of Corex syrup (8 litres).
   • Additionally, from Manoj Kumar’s premises at Ludhiana, 9,900 tablets weighing nearly 1 kg were recovered.
5. Mohit Aggarwal was arrested on 11 January 2020. He applied twice for bail before the Special Judge (NDPS), but both applications were rejected.
6. He then approached the Delhi High Court under Section 439 CrPC. On 16 March 2021, the High Court granted him bail, observing that no incriminating recovery was made from his residence and that the main basis for linking him was the confessional statements, which were doubtful after the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020).
7. Aggrieved, the NCB challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had overlooked the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.

       6. Issues Raised

The case raised significant legal issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent despite Section 37 NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs.
2. Whether statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act (later held inadmissible in Tofan Singh) could be relied upon for bail consideration.
3. Whether circumstantial evidence, such as disclosures leading to recovery and call detail records (CDRs), could justify denial of bail.
4. To what extent can the absence of direct recovery from the accused’s possession justify granting bail under the NDPS Act?

       7. Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (NCB):

• Error by High Court: The High Court wrongly observed that no incriminating material was recovered from Mohit’s residence. In fact, based on his disclosures, a massive haul of narcotics was seized from the co-accused’s premises.
• Section 37 NDPS Act: Bail in cases involving commercial quantity can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not re-offend. These twin conditions were ignored by the High Court.
• Active role of respondent: The case involves constructive possession and active participation in an organized drug syndicate.
• Circumstantial evidence: Apart from confessional statements, there was substantial evidence, including:
  • Disclosures leading to recovery.
  • CDRs showing communication between accused persons.
  • Statements connecting Mohit with the illegal drug supply chain.

Respondent (Mohit Aggarwal):

• Compliance with bail: He had remained in custody for 1 year 3 months before bail and complied with conditions thereafter.
• No direct recovery: No narcotics were recovered from his shop or residence.
• Section 67 inadmissibility: His alleged role is based only on statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh held inadmissible.
• Small-time shopkeeper: Claimed to be a small chemist shopkeeper with no connection to large-scale trafficking.
• Retraction of confession: Both he and Gaurav Kumar Aggarwal had retracted their statements at the first opportunity.

8. Judgment / Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed NCB’s appeals and set aside the Delhi High Court’s bail order.

• The Court held that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied.
• The respondent’s bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody forthwith.

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Court’s reasoning can be broken into key points:

1. Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act:
   • Section 37 begins with a non-obstante clause overriding CrPC.
   • Bail in offences involving a commercial quantity requires two cumulative conditions:
     • (i) Court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty.
     • (ii) The accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
   • “Reasonable grounds” means credible, substantial, and probable cause, not mere prima facie grounds (Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549; State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122).
2. Inadmissibility of Section 67 Statements:
   • As per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible in trial.
   • Therefore, such statements cannot alone justify a conviction. However, they do not prevent reliance on other circumstantial evidence.
3. Circumstantial Evidence against Respondent:
   • Mohit Aggarwal’s disclosures led directly to the recovery of massive quantities of drugs from co-accused Promod Jaipuria’s premises.
   • CDRs confirmed regular contact among the accused persons.
   • Thus, even excluding the confessions, there was strong material linking the respondent to the drug racket.
4. High Court’s Error:
   • The High Court overlooked the statutory restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act.
   • It wrongly emphasized absence of recovery from respondent’s residence, ignoring his constructive involvement and role in the chain of supply.
   • Bail cannot be justified solely on long custody or charge-sheet filing.
5. Principle Clarified:
   • At bail stage, courts are not expected to record findings of innocence or guilt.
   • The inquiry is limited to whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe the accused may not be guilty and whether he will not commit offences on bail.
   • In this case, such satisfaction could not be reached in the respondent’s favour.

10. Conclusion / Observations

The NDPS Act treats drug offences as a serious threat to society, especially when involving a commercial quantity. Hence, bail is not a matter of right but is tightly controlled. The judgment reiterates that Section 37 imposes a higher threshold than normal CrPC provisions. The burden lies on the accused to establish reasonable grounds of innocence, which was not met here. The Court clarified that while confessional statements under Section 67 are inadmissible post-Tofan Singh, other circumstantial evidence, such as recoveries, disclosures, and CDRs, can independently justify denial of bail. Importantly, the Court warned against a liberal approach to bail in NDPS matters. Custody duration or procedural milestones like charge-sheet filing cannot substitute the twin statutory conditions.

This ruling strengthens the enforcement authority of NCB and similar agencies by: Emphasizing the doctrine of constructive possession, Validating reliance on circumstantial evidence when direct recovery is absent, and Reinforcing that bail in NDPS cases is an exception, not the rule.

From a rights perspective, the case highlights the tension between individual liberty and societal protection. The Court leaned heavily towards societal interest, reflecting a policy of deterrence against drug trafficking. Critics may argue this restricts the presumption of innocence, but the Court justified it by pointing to the magnitude of the contraband and the organized nature of the crime.

Overall, this judgment serves as an important precedent for interpreting Section 37 NDPS Act and will guide lower courts in bail considerations for narcotics cases.