Facts of the Case

This is an NDPS Act bail matter, not a GST dispute. The petitioner, Vipin Mittal, sought regular bail in FIR No. RC35/2022/NIA/DLI registered by the National Investigating Agency under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 27(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner conspired with others to import a consignment of licorice roots (mulethi) from Afghanistan concealing heroin, which was seized by customs officials at ICP Atari, Amritsar, on 22 April 2022 — about 102.78 kg of heroin in total. The consignment was imported by M/s Shree Balaji Trading Company, of which the petitioner was the proprietor, leading to his arrest. The petitioner had reportedly paid the applicable GST to customs officials online upon receiving the consignment, which he cited as evidence that he was dealing with it as an ordinary, above-board trading transaction, unaware of the concealed contraband.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was in “conscious possession” of the contraband, given that it was intercepted before reaching him.
  2. Whether the material on record made out reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty, for the purposes of bail under the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The consignment had been genuinely booked for import and was meant to be sold to a named buyer at a commercial profit margin; the petitioner was merely an intermediary trader, unaware of the concealed contraband.
  • Since the consignment was intercepted before it reached the petitioner's possession, at best the allegation could only be one of conspiracy, not possession.
  • Intercepted communications showed no discussion of contraband, only routine enquiries about the consignment's whereabouts; the cash amount received (Rs. 11 lakh) was consistent with a genuine trading advance, not evidence of a multi-crore narcotics deal.
  • The petitioner was suffering from Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (a serious blood cancer) and required ongoing medical treatment.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The National Investigating Agency opposed bail, citing the large quantity of heroin (102.136 kg and 0.648 kg) recovered, the petitioner's prior 2018 consignment from the same Afghan supplier, and use of unusual communication applications, though it conceded no specific chat data referred to contraband.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found, on a prima facie assessment, that the petitioner was not in conscious possession since the contraband was intercepted before reaching him, that the sequence of events suggested a genuine trading transaction at commercial prices, and that there was no direct evidence of the petitioner discussing or being aware of the contraband.
  • Given the petitioner's clean antecedents, established business reputation, absence of flight risk, and serious medical condition (CML) requiring regular treatment, the Court held he was entitled to bail.
  • Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with a family-member surety, subject to standard conditions (no travel abroad without permission, cooperation with investigation, regular reporting to the IO, and no witness tampering).

Important Clarification

The petitioner's payment of GST to customs officials was mentioned only as one detail supporting his narrative of a routine, legitimate trading transaction — the Court did not examine or rule on any GST law question. This is purely an NDPS Act bail order, expressly stating that observations made were only for the purposes of deciding bail and not an expression on the merits of the case.

Sections Involved

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 27(a), 29, 37

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner on the limited question of bail. Regular bail was granted, subject to conditions, without any finding on the merits of the underlying NDPS smuggling allegations.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: Bail Appln. 1168/2023
Coram: Justice Anish Dayal
Date of Judgment: 30 May 2023 (reserved 15 May 2023)

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.