Allowed¶47

Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky v. Union of India and Anr.

BAIL – NDPS ACT

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026BA/56/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (R.M. Joshi, J., 23-03-2026) allows bail to Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky in NCB codeine-phosphate case (Crime No.2 of 2025; Ss.8(c) r/w 21(c), 22(c), 28, 29 NDPS Act): only link was co-accused Section 67 statements; Investigating Agency's lethargy highlighted — arrest delayed from 06-01-2025 to 30-10-2025 and earlier bail order in C.R. No.8 of 2025 (14-11-2025) left unchallenged despite affidavit claim; PR bond Rs.30,000/- with one/two sureties; observations prima facie; Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu referred by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.2 of 2025, registered with Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai, on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ¶47

Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky vs Union of India and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant is entitled to bail in connection with file NCB/MZU/CR-02/2025 (Crime No.2 of 2025, NDPS Act offences) where, apart from statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there is allegedly no evidence connecting him with the crime. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Except for the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the Applicant with the present crime.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

For want of any other evidence on record except the alleged Section 67 statement of the co-accused, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail to the Applicant.

¶44

Key takeaways

The Applicant's arrest on 30 October 2025 for an offence revealed on 6 January 2025 shows the Investigating Agency's least interest in investigating the serious crime, which supports the grant of bail.ratio¶43
Failure to take exception since November 2025 to the Special Court's bail order in C.R. No.8 of 2025, despite the reply affidavit asserting that a challenge was in process, shows complete lethargy on the part of the Investigating Agency and weakens its opposition to bail.ratio¶38
The Court has reason to believe that the affidavit's assertion that the earlier bail order was being challenged was made only because it was argued before this Court that bail had been granted in another crime against the Applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL — NDPS ACT — NO EVIDENCE BEYOND CO-ACCUSED'S SECTION 67 STATEMENT; INVESTIGATING AGENCY'S LETHARGY. Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky sought bail in Crime No.2 of 2025 (file NCB/MZU/CR-02/2025; Ss.8(c) r/w 21(c), 22(c), 28 and 29, NDPS Act, 1985), arising from seizure of 120 bottles of Codeine Phosphate at L.T.T. Railway Station on 6 January 2025. On merits, the Court found that apart from the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act there was absolutely no evidence connecting the Applicant with the crime. The prosecution's habitual-offender plea was undermined by its own conduct: a delay of about ten months between revelation of the offence (6 January 2025) and arrest (30 October 2025), and failure since 14 November 2025 to challenge the Special Court's bail order in C.R. No.8 of 2025 although the reply affidavit claimed a challenge was 'in process' — with not even a lodging number produced. Bail was granted on a PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, with an express rider that the observations are prima facie only. Counsel had invoked Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu to contend that Section 67 statements are inadmissible; the Court noted the submission but did not expressly adjudicate admissibility.

¶1

64-ba56-26.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶5

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2026.03.25 18:46:57 +0530

¶6

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2026

¶7

Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky ...Applicant V/s.

¶8

Union of India & Anr. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr.Taraq Sayed with Mr.Anish Pereira and Ms.Ashwini Achor for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr.S.K. Halwasia with Ms.S.S. Halwasia and Mr.Keshar Thakur for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Ms.S.K. Gajare, APP for the State - Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2026.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The Applicant seeks bail in connection with file

¶15

No.NCB/MZU/CR-02/2025 for the offences punishable under

¶16

Sections 8(c) r/w 21 (c), 22 (c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act,

¶17

¶18

It is the case of the prosecution that the information

¶19

was received with regard to contraband being carried by the

¶20

1/6

¶21

64-ba56-26.doc

¶22

accused. The officers reached to L.T.T. Railway Station and seized the boxes containing 120 bottles of Codeine Phosphate. This recovery was done on 6^th January, 2025. In connection with the said crime, the accused was arrested. The Applicant came to be arrested after seeking his custody from Crime No.8 of 2025.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that here in this case, except for the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the Applicant with the crime. By relying upon the judgment in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu , it is contended that the said statement is inadmissible in evidence. It is claimed that there is no recovery of any contraband from or at the instance of the Applicant. It is further submitted that the Applicant has been enlarged on bail in other crime and that till date, the said order of bail has not been taken exception to.

¶24

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has filed reply and a copy thereof is served on the other side.

¶25

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 laid stress on the

¶26

2/6

¶27

64-ba56-26.doc

¶28

point that the Applicant is habitual offender involved in the offences under NDPS Act. He refers to the affidavit in reply filed on record and more particularly clauses “(D)” and “(E)” thereof. It would be necessary to reproduce the said reply, which reads thus :

¶29

“(D). With reference to Paragraphs VIII, to XIV of the Bail Application, it is respectfully submitted that, it is denied that no nexus exists. Application (A-2) himself disclosed that sale proceeds were received in a Bank of India account (A/c No. 3614481460) belonging to Ritesh Gupta. Supply chain documents linking batches to Varanasi entities. Letters have already been dispatched to Nodal Officers (Reliance JIO, Airtel, BSNL, Vodafone) to obtain certified CDRs and CAF for the mobile numbers provided by the accused. The investigation is "kept open" for supplementary evidence. The fact that applicant was already in custody in CR-08/2025 does not dilute his role; it shows habitual/continuing involvement in similar offences. The applicant was arrested pursuant to a production warrant lawfully issued by the competent court. Paper arrest argument is misconceived - production warrant + summons + voluntary statement + formal arrest followed due process. The Applicant's custody in another case does not absolve him from liability in the present offence.

¶30

(E). With reference to Para XV to XX it is respectfully submitted that, It is denied that absence of CDRs or financial records weakens the

¶31

3/6

¶32

64-ba56-26.doc

¶33

prosecution at the bail stage. Investigation reveals hawala-based transactions , which by their nature avoid formal banking channels. Requests for CDRs and bank records have already been issued to concerned service providers and banks, replies whereof are awaited. There is ample prima facie material linking the Applicant with the seized contraband, including: Supply from Varanasi, and received payment in Account No. 3614481460 of Bank of India in the name of Ritesh Kumar Gupta and Hawala operator Jalaluddin Khan, Association with absconding accused namely Sarfaraz Nasiruddin Shaikh @ Bablu and Bhola.”

¶34

If it is the case of the prosecution that the Applicant is

¶35

habitual offender, it needs to be explained as to why the immediate action is not taken by the prosecution / Investigating Agency. What only could be attributed is either that Investigating Agency is not serious in the investigation of the crime or that there is no substance in the allegation. This is more so supported by the fact on record that the present Applicant was granted bail in C.R. No.8 of 2025 by an order dated 14^th November, 2025. If the Investigating Agency is so serious in opposing the Application, nothing had prevented the Investigating Agency from taking exception to the said order passed by the Special Court as back as in November, 2025. In the

¶36

4/6

¶37

64-ba56-26.doc

¶38

affidavit in reply filed what is being stated is that the Investigating Agnecy is in process of challenging the said order. This shows complete lethargy on the part of the Investigating Agency in taking prompt actions as recorded herein above. This Court has reason to believe that only for the reason that it was sought to be argued before this Court that in another matter another crime registered against the Applicant bail has been granted, this statement came to be made.

¶39

This Court has asked specific query to the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 as to whether there is even a lodging number to indicate that such application / proceedings challenging the order passed by the Special Court in C.R. No.8 of 2025 is filed. Learned APP for want of information in this regard was unable to make any statement.

¶40

Coming to the merits of the case, except for the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act, there is absolutely no evidence in order to connect the Applicant with this crime. Apart from this, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶41

5/6

¶42

64-ba56-26.doc

¶43

Applicant that inspite of the fact that the offence in question was revealed on 6^th January, 2025, the Applicant came to be arrested on 30^th October, 2025. This conduct of the Investigating Agency is also more sufficient to show the least interest in investigating the serious crime like the one in hand.

¶44

For want of any other evidence on record, except for the alleged statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the Applicant. Hence the following order :-

¶45

O R D E R :

¶46

a). The Application stands allowed.

¶47

b). The Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.2 of 2025, registered with Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 21 (c), 22 (c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount for the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶48

c). It is clarified that above observations are prima-facie in nature and would not bind Trial Court / parties during trial.

¶49

6/6

Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Daniel Gitau Muniyi vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Farukh Mansuri @ Mohd. Farukh Mansuri @ Mohd. Farukh Yasin Mansur @ Mohammad Farooq Yasin vs the State of Maharashtra

Hulchal Lalji Garg vs the State of Maharashtra

Alpaben Dineshbhai Nandini Thakkar vs State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Botla Venkata Sai Teja vs Union of India and Anr.

Salim @ D. Badshaha Babu Tamboli vs State of Maharashtra