(Prayer: This Crl.P. is filed u/S.439 Cr.P.C praying to allow the petition and grant Regular Bail U/S 483 of BNS in the case against this petitioner in or No.31/2025 Fr No.DRI/BZU/S- IV/ENQ-31/(INT-NIL)/2025 registered at directorate of revenue inteligence for the offences p/u/S 8(C),20,23,28,29,20(B)(II)(C), 23(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, which is pending before the Honble XXXIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Spel Judge (NDPS) Bengaluru CCH-33, and the Honble Court has remanded the petitioner on the 21.08.2025 to judicial custody.

This Crl.P is filed u/S.439 (filed u/S.483 BNSS) Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in Spl.C.C.No.222/2026 (F.No.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-31(INT-NIL)/2025) registered by Union of India through, intelligence officer Directorate of Revenue intelligence for the offence p/us/ 8(C) r/w 20(B)(Ii)(C),23(C),28,29 of NDPS Act 1985, pending on the file of the Honble XXXIII Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge (NDPS) Bengaluru CCH-33.)

CAV Order

1. Accused nos.2 & 7 in F.No.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-31(INT- NIL)/2025 registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20, 20(b)(ii)(c), 23, 23(C), 28 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, are before this Court in the above captioned two criminal petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.08.2025, the Intelligence Officer of DRI, Bengaluru, had received credible information that two persons traveling from Bengaluru Railway Station to Delhi in Rajadhani Express, were trying to illegally transport contraband article and on receipt of the said information, the officers of DRI had gone to the Railway Station at Bengaluru and intercepted two persons by name Tajinder Singh and Jasleen Kaur. The said persons had admitted that they were carrying contraband article ganja in their baggages. From the possession of the said two persons, contraband article allegedly ganja totally weighting 29.880 Kgs. was seized under a panchanama and subsequently the said accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the voluntary statement of the arrested accused, two other persons by name Srajan Shetty and Sravan G.Shetty were arrested who are arrayed as accused nos.3 & 4, respectively. From the possession of accused no.3, 2,983 grams of contraband article ganja and from the possession of accused no.4, 14.975 Kgs. of contraband article ganja was recovered. Based on the confession statement of the arrested accused, the officers had apprehended accused nos.5 & 6 in Madhya Pradesh and from their possession, 24.186 Kgs. of contraband article ganja was seized. On instructions from the officers at Bengaluru, a raid was conducted in Delhi by the officers of DRI at Delhi and accused nos.7 & 8 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Bail application filed by accused nos.2 & 7 before the Trial Court was rejected, and therefore, they are before this Court in these two petitions.

4. Learned Counsel for accused no.2 submits that accused no.2 is an unmarried lady having no other criminal antecedents. She had accompanied accused no.1 who is her cousin, without knowing that he was indulged in trafficking of drugs. He submits that investigation of the case is completed and considering the proviso to Section 480 of BNSS, 2023, the prayer of accused no.2 for grant of regular bail may be allowed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for accused no.7 submits that there is no seizure of any contraband article from the possession of this accused. He submits that for extraneous reasons he has been arrested. He submits that accused nos.3 and 4 from whom contraband articles were seized in the present case have been granted regular bail by the Trial Court. He submits that no contraband article is seized from the possession of accused no.7, and therefore, the rigor under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act cannot be made applicable as against him. Accused no.7 has been arrested only on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, and therefore, prays to allow his petition. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - (2021)4 SCC 1, STATE BY (NCB) BENGALURU VS PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA & ANR. - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63, AMIT RANJAN VS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, DELHI - 2022:DHC:1985, SHEIKH MURTAZA GULZAR VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - (2021)4 SCC 1.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent who has filed statement of objections, has strenuously opposed the bail petitions. He submits that accused no.2 who had accompanied accused no.1 had met one Harneet Singh Sethi on 18.08.2025 in a hotel at Chikka Jala in Bengaluru, and the material on record would go to show that contraband articles were handed over to accused nos.1 & 2 by the said Harneet Singh Sethi, who is a person with multiple criminal antecedents of similar nature. He refers to the confession statement of accused no.2 and submits that she has admitted about meeting the aforesaid Harneet Singh Sethi in a hotel and she has also stated that on that day she came to know that accused no.1 was involved in the activities of drug trafficking. He submits that contraband article seized from the possession of accused nos.1 & 2 is of commercial quantity. Based on their confession statement, accused nos.3 & 4 were apprehended in Bengaluru and from their possession also, contraband articles were seized. Subsequently, accused nos.5 & 6 were apprehended in Madhya Pradesh and even from the said accused persons, contraband articles were seized. Accused no.7 is the brother of Harpreeth Singh, the kingpin of the racket who is operating from Dubai. Huge currency including foreign currency were recovered from the house of accused no.7 and during the course of investigation, it was found that accused no.7 was in contact not only with his brother Harpreeth Singh, but also with other accused persons who are involved in systematic trafficking of drugs across India. He submits that if the material collected is sufficient to show the involvement of the accused in drug trafficking, even if the contraband article is not seized from his possession, his bail application is liable to be rejected. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARPREET SINGH TALWAR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - SLP(Crl.).No.8878/2024, and UNION OF INDIA VS MD. NAWAZ KHAN - 2021-378-ELT-245-SC.

7. The material on record would go to show that based on credible information to the effect that two passengers traveling to Delhi in Rajadhani Express Train No.22691 from Bengaluru, who were supposed to depart from Platform No.8 at 20.00 hours from Kranthiveera Sangolli Rayanna Railway Station, Majestic, Bengaluru, were carrying the contraband articles, the officers of DRI had intercepted the said persons viz., Tajinder Singh and Jasleen Kaur - accused nos.1 & 2 in the present case. On inquiry, accused nos.1 & 2 had admitted about carrying contraband article in the three trolley bags which they were carrying. Subsequently, the said trolley bags were opened and from the said bags, contraband article Marijuana (ganja) totally weighing 29.880 Kgs. was recovered under a panchanama. During the course of interrogation, accused no.1 revealed that two more persons related to their gang, were sitting in a room in Hotel Orchid Bloom, Balaji Layout, Bagalur Main Road, Bengaluru, and based on such information, the officers of DRI, Bengaluru, went to the said hotel and apprehended accused no.3 - Srajan Shetty and accused no.4 - Sravan G.Shetty, and from their possession, contraband article totally weighing 14.975 Kgs. was recovered under a separate panchanama.

8. It appears that subsequently based on the confession statement, accused nos.5 & 6 were arrested in Madhya Pradesh and from the possession of accused nos.5 & 6, contraband article allegedly ganja totally weighing 24.186 Kgs. was recovered. The DRI officers at Delhi, on instructions from their counter part at Bengaluru, had raided the house of accused no.7 and from his house, Indian currency of Rs.1,02,50,000/-, 8500 UAE Dirhams and 810 Thai Baht were recovered. Accused nos.7 & 8 had confessed during the course of recording their statement under Section 67 of the Act that the amount recovered from them was the proceeds of narcotic substances.

9. Accused no.7 is said to be the brother of Harpreet Singh who is the alleged master mind and key conspirator in organizing systematic trafficking of contraband article in India after sourcing the same from Bangkok and other foreign countries. It appears that Harpreet Singh who is residing in Dubai, has been sourcing contraband articles from suppliers in Thailand and other countries and the accused persons arrested in the present case were trafficking the same on the instructions of the said Harpreet Singh and Harneet Singh Sethi. The material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation revealed that payments to foreign suppliers were facilitated through hawala currency and crypto currency transactions and accused no.7 was enabling the finance and domestic logistics in India and was reporting to his brother Harpreet Singh.

10. Accused nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 in their confession statement, have stated about their contact with Harneet Singh Sethi. The material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation would go to show that some of the arrested accused had even traveled to Bangkok on the instructions of the aforesaid Harpreet Singh and Harneet Singh Sethi and for the purpose of their travel and stay, arrangements were made by the aforesaid kingpins. The investigation officer has collected the particulars of travel of the arrested accused and the same clearly establishes the communication between the arrested accused and the absconding kingpins, on whose instructions, the accused persons were trafficking drug across India and delivering to persons as instructed by the aforesaid Harpreet Singh and Harneet Singh Sethi.

11. Accused nos.3 and 4 were found in possession of intermediate quantity of contraband article and it appears that Trial Court has granted regular bail to them for the said reason on the ground that the rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, may not be applicable to them. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments, has brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent have taken action to challenge the order of the Trial Court granting bail to accused nos.3 and 4.

12. Learned Counsel for accused no.7 has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case supra, Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta's case supra, Amit Ranjan's case supra, and Sheikh Murtaza Gulzar's case supra, in support of his argument that confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act is not admissible evidence. The said judgments are applicable in cases where the accused is arrested only based on confession statement and no other material is collected by the prosecution as against him during the course of investigation. In the present case, in addition to the confession statement, the prosecution has collected sufficient material to prove prima facie involvement of the accused persons in the alleged crime.

13. In the present case, so far as accused no.2 is concerned, commercial quantity of contraband article was seized from her possession and the material on record would go to show that she was in conscious possession of the same and she also had met the aforesaid Harneet Singh Sethi at Bengaluru. Therefore, it prima facie appears that she is a part of the syndicate involved in trafficking drugs across India.

14. In so far as accused no.7 is concerned, during the course of investigation, the officers of DRI have not only recovered huge quantity of cash including foreign currencies, but also have collected material to show that accused no.7 was taking care of finance and logistic support to the carriers. His CDR, bank account extract, etc., demonstrates his communication with the syndicate carrying on illegal activity of drug trafficking in India after importing the same from Thailand and other foreign countries.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Nawaz Khan's case supra, in paragraphs 24, 25 & 30, has observed as under:

          "24. As regards the finding of the High Court regarding absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the respondent, we note that in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik (2009) 1 SCC 624] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck, no contraband was found in the 'possession' of the accused. The Court observed that merely making a finding on the possession of the contraband did not fulfil the parameters of Section 37(1)(b) and there was non- application of mind by the High Court.

          25. In line with the decision of this Court in Rattan Mallik (supra), we are of the view that a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

          30. The following circumstances are crucial to assessing whether the High Court has correctly evaluated the application for bail, having regard to the provisions of Section 37:

          (i) The respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh with the co-accused.

          (ii) The complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicates that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons who were known to him.

          (iii) The quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a commercial quantity.

          (iv) The contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused."

16. In Harpreet Singh Talwar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 25 to 29, has observed as under:

          "25. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both sides and upon careful perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that the Appellant has not been able to make out a case for grant of regular bail at this stage.

          26. We say so for the reason that despite no direct recovery of contraband effected from the Appellant, the Prosecution's case is that he played a coordinating and enabling role in facilitating the import of narcotics concealed as talc through M/s Magent India--which he allegedly controlled through a proxy. The consignment, although not seized with heroin, shares structural and logistical similarities with those where heroin was ultimately found.

          27. The charge against the Appellant must also be evaluated in light of the broader matrix of facts, including (i) his alleged meetings in Dubai with a principal foreign accused; (ii) the transfer of documents through intermediaries for the clearance of a flagged consignment; (iii) efforts to retrospectively fabricate invoices and assign responsibility to others; (iv) the use of multiple firms allegedly connected to him to obfuscate the true nature of the transactions; and (v) his telephonic calls to certain co-conspirators. These aspects, supported by the statements of protected witnesses and circumstantial linkages, currently meet the threshold of prima facie satisfaction regarding the Appellant's complicity.

          28. This Court is cognizant of the fact that no heroin or narcotic substances were directly recovered from the consignment linked to the Appellant. However, the investigative narrative does not rest solely on physical recovery but proceeds on the basis of conspiracy and facilitation. In such cases, the absence of direct seizure is not dispositive, particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious entities, and barter-based compensation-- features which, according to the prosecution, mark the smuggling architecture employed in the present matter.

          29. The Appellant faces serious charges, which allegedly carry grave societal ramifications, including the facilitation of cross-border drug trafficking--an offence with well-documented links to organised crime and public health degradation. The seizure in the connected consignment is part of what the Prosecution claims to be the largest heroin bust in Indian history, valued at over INR 21,000 crores. The scale and sophistication of the operation, involving foreign syndicates, shell firms, medical visas, and false documentation, elevates this case far beyond routine NDPS violations."

17. To check the menace of dangers the drug and psychotropic substances has been causing in the society, the Parliament has provided that a person accused of offence under the Act should not be released on bail during the trial unless mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 of the Act are satisfied. The twin conditions found in Section 37(1)(b) of the Act are, the reasonable ground to believe that the accused is involved in the case, and the accused is not likely to commit the offence while on bail.

18. The evidence collected during the course of investigation in the present case, makes out a prima facie case about involvement of the petitioners herein in the alleged crime. No reason whatsoever is found to falsely implicate them in the present case. Merely for the reason that investigation is completed, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail in a case where huge quantity of contraband article is found to be trafficking across India.

19. In the case of STATE OF KERALA VS RAJESH & Others - MANU/SC/0084/2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of regular bail at this stage cannot be entertained, more so when some of the accused named in the complaint are yet to be arrested. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.