Case Summary: Gurjit Singh v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr. (2025) | NDPS Bail and Section 483 BNSS

On 17 January 2024, the NCB intercepted a DHL parcel bound for Australia containing 2.946 kg of Methamphetamine. The trail led to a Jaipur franchise, where Mukesh Chouhan and Pinku Singh Rajput were arrested. Their disclosures led to the arrest of Gaurav Singh Chauhan in Delhi, from whose residence 12.160 kg of Methamphetamine was seized.

Subsequently, the applicant Gurjit Singh was arrested in Ludhiana on 29 January 2024. A search at Vishwakarma Mechanical Works yielded 5 kg of Ephedrine, and a raid at a godown in Gill Village uncovered a clandestine laboratory run by three Mexican nationals. The raid resulted in the recovery of Ephedrine, Methamphetamine traces, precursor chemicals, and equipment.

Investigation revealed an international drug cartel coordinated by handlers abroad—Vegas, Ghost, and Antonio—who financed the operations through hawala channels and deployed Mexican nationals as chemists. Witnesses, financial records, and electronic evidence confirmed Gurjit Singh’s role in running the Ludhiana lab.

Earlier consignments had also been shipped, with one intercepted by the Australian Border Force in December 2023. In all, around 15 kg of Amphetamine had been produced at the Ludhiana facility. A supplementary charge sheet filed in May 2025 included digital forensic evidence further implicating the applicant.

Submissions by the Applicant

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan advanced detailed arguments on behalf of Gurjit Singh:

False Implication & Lack of Recovery

• No contraband recovered from Singh personally or from premises under his ownership/control.
• Reliance on recoveries from co-accused is speculative.

Inadmissibility of Statements under Section 67 NDPS Act

• Following Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), confessions made to NDPS officers are inadmissible.
• Prosecution’s reliance on such statements violates Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution.

Vishwakarma Factory Recovery

• Factory belonged to co-accused Satnam Singh. Gurjit Singh had no control or ownership. Mere presence does not establish guilt.

Gill Village Godown Recovery

• No rent agreement or financial records linking Singh to the godown.
• Oral assertions by the landlord are insufficient to prove tenancy.

Call Detail Records (CDRs)

• Telephonic contact with Satnam Singh was explained by the professional association.
• CDRs are circumstantial and inconclusive.

Links with Foreign Nationals

• Identities of “Vegas”, “Ghost” and “Antonio” unverified.
• WhatsApp references are inconclusive.

Section 37 NDPS Not Attracted

• Recovery attributable to Singh limited to Ephedrine (controlled substance) and 9 g Methamphetamine (small quantity).
• Section 37 applies only to narcotic/psychotropic substances in commercial quantity.

Parity with Co-accused

• Co-accused with greater recoveries (e.g., Manpreet Singh Gill, Vikramjit Singh) have already been granted bail.
• Singh should receive similar treatment.

Delay in Trial

• Charges not framed; charge sheet exceeds 2,500 pages; 39 witnesses listed.
• The trial will take years. Singh has been in custody for over one year.
• Relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024), and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024).

Medical Grounds

• Singh suffers from health issues, previously granted interim bail for treatment. Prolonged custody violates the right to health.

Clean Antecedents & Low Risk

• No prior convictions.
• Deep social roots.
• No chance of absconding or tampering with evidence.

Submissions by the Prosecution

Arun Khatri, Senior Standing Counsel for NCB, opposed bail, stressing Singh’s central role:

Key Role in Meth Lab

• Singh and Satnam Singh ran the clandestine Ludhiana lab.
• Landlord and witnesses confirmed Singh’s control and presence.

Incriminating Digital Evidence

• Singh’s Google Pixel 6A phone contained WhatsApp chats with cartel leaders.
• Photos of drugs, chemical lists, expenses, and passports of Mexican nationals were recovered.
• Forensic analysis showed sustained contact with cartel leaders abroad.

Financial Transactions

• Singh allegedly received 15,000 USDT from abroad.
• Hawala agent confirmed the transfer of ₹13 lakh to Singh’s son.
• WhatsApp chats corroborated these transactions.

Corroboration by Co-Accused & Mexicans

• Co-accused and Mexican nationals confirmed Singh’s supervisory role and instructions on the disposal of contraband.

Conspiracy Charges

• Even if Ephedrine is a controlled substance, the conspiracy to manufacture/export Methamphetamine (commercial quantity) attracts Section 29 NDPS.

Distinction from Co-Accused

• Other accused played peripheral roles (e.g., transport, packaging).
• Singh was central to production and international coordination.
• Hence, parity is inapplicable.

Section 37 Bar Applies

• Commercial quantity of Methamphetamine is involved.
• Applicant fails to satisfy the twin conditions: not guilty and unlikely to reoffend.

Risk Factors

• Scale and international links raise the risk of tampering and reoffending.
• Seriousness outweighs claims of delay and medical hardship.

Issues Before the Court

• Does Section 37 NDPS apply despite recovery being of Ephedrine (controlled substance) and a small quantity of Methamphetamine?
• Are statements under Section 67 NDPS Act inadmissible, weakening the prosecution’s case?
• Do circumstantial evidence (CDRs, WhatsApp chats, hawala trails) establish prima facie complicity?
• Does the principle of parity entitle the applicant to bail when co-accused have been released?
• Can prolonged custody and health concerns override statutory restrictions under Section 37?

Judicial Analysis

Applicability of Section 37 NDPS

• Court held recoveries included commercial quantities (2.946 kg from DHL, 12.160 kg from Delhi residence, besides smaller recoveries at Ludhiana).
• Conspiracy charges under Section 29 NDPS make Singh liable for acts of co-conspirators.
• Hence, Section 37 bar applies.

Inadmissibility of Section 67 Statements

• Agreed such statements cannot solely form the basis of conviction (Tofan Singh).
• However, the prosecution had independent corroborative evidence (digital forensics, witness statements, and financial records).
• Thus, the case is not dependent only on confessions.

Circumstantial and Digital Evidence

• Landlord’s testimony, witness corroboration, and forensic data linked Singh to lab operations.
• WhatsApp chats, CDRs, and hawala transactions indicated sustained international coordination.
• Court found prima facie evidence of involvement.

Principle of Parity

Distinguished Singh’s role from that of the co-accused:

• Co-accused were couriers/intermediaries.
• Singh supervised the lab, coordinated with cartel leaders, arranged finances, and oversaw production.
• Hence, the parity plea was rejected.

Delay and Medical Grounds

• The court acknowledged trial could be lengthy, but held delay alone was insufficient to override Section 37 NDPS.
• Medical care could be provided in custody; interim bail had been granted earlier when needed.
• No exceptional circumstances warranting bail.

Conclusion of the Court

• Material on record (recoveries, digital evidence, financial trails, witness statements) established a strong prima facie case of Singh’s central role in an international drug cartel.
• The twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act are not satisfied.
• The principle of parity is inapplicable given a distinct role.
• Delay and health grounds are inadequate.
• Bail application dismissed.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Reaffirmation of Section 37 NDPS: The decision reiterates that in cases involving commercial quantities, bail is the exception, not the norm.
2. Conspiracy Liability: Even limited recoveries from an accused can attract Section 37 if wider conspiracy and commercial quantities are established.
3. Digital Forensics in NDPS Cases: The Court relied heavily on WhatsApp chats, group names, digital images, and financial transfers to establish complicity.
4. Limits of Parity: Bail parity cannot be mechanically applied; roles and responsibilities must be compared.
5. Balance between Liberty and Statutory Restraint: While acknowledging Article 21 concerns (speedy trial, health), the Court emphasised that the statutory bar under Section 37 takes precedence unless an exceptional delay is shown.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment