Court cites lack of recovery from personal possession and inadmissibility of confessional statements as key reasons for bail.
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Kashif, the petitioner accused in a high-profile case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case involves allegations of syndicate trafficking of psychotropic substances, specifically Tramadol and Zolpidem, in commercial quantities to the USA via courier services. The decision was delivered by Justice Vikas Mahajan on February 12, 2026, following a detailed examination of the case particulars and the legal standards for bail in offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act.
Kashif had been in custody since March 7, 2022, enduring over two years of incarceration with the trial making only sluggish progress. This prolonged detention, paired with the absence of any recovery from his personal or conscious possession, formed the cornerstone of the court's decision to grant bail. The prosecution's case heavily relied on the disclosure statements of co-accused and the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the Supreme Court has deemed inadmissible in its landmark judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The court noted that while considering bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or a detailed inquiry into the evidence. Instead, the focus is on establishing whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. In this case, the absence of direct evidence linking Kashif to the contraband seized from courier facilities and the inadmissibility of confessional statements were pivotal.
Moreover, the court acknowledged Kashif's clean antecedents and satisfactory conduct during interim bail periods, further supporting his bail eligibility. Justice Mahajan also underscored the slow pace of the trial, with only two out of 31 witnesses examined, attributing the delays primarily to the prosecution.
The bail conditions set by the court include a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, restrictions on leaving the country, mandatory court appearances, and a prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.
This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's stance in cases like Man Mandal v. State of West Bengal and Jitender Jain v. NCB, where prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities prompted bail grants.
The court's ruling is a reminder of the legal safeguards against prolonged detention without trial and reinforces the principle that bail is the norm, not the exception, even in serious offences like those under the NDPS Act.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Bail in case of alleged involvement in syndicate trafficking psychotropic substances - Prolonged incarceration, absence of recovery from personal possession, inadmissibility of disclosure statements, and lack of corroborative evidence are significant factors for granting bail.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8, 22(c), 23(c), 29, 37, and 67; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 25.
Kashif v. Narcotic Control Bureau, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2852651
