The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a foreign national accused in a commercial-quantity narcotics case after he became untraceable following his release on bail, while issuing a comprehensive set of directions to strengthen bail and surety verification procedures for foreign nationals facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol found that the case raised issues extending far beyond the correctness of the individual bail order, particularly concerning the adequacy of safeguards governing foreign nationals released on bail and the verification of sureties.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
Thirteen Binding Directions Issued
The Supreme Court issued a detailed set of directions applicable to cases involving foreign nationals accused of offences concerning commercial quantities under the NDPS Act.
Passport to be Deposited
The passport of the foreign-national accused must be deposited with the jurisdictional court. The court may also restrict the accused from travelling outside India without prior permission.
FRRO Registration Within One Week
A foreign national released on bail must register with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) within one week of release and inform both the investigating officer and the concerned court in writing about the registration. The FRRO has also been directed to develop a portal to facilitate this process.
Two Sureties Mandatory
A foreign national seeking bail must ordinarily furnish two sureties for the like amount.
However, the Supreme Court recognised that foreign nationals may face genuine difficulty in securing sureties. Where sufficient efforts have been made but obtaining two sureties is difficult or impossible, the concerned court may relax the requirement by passing a written order and recording reasons.
Three-Day Verification Deadline
The Court mandated that surety verification must ordinarily be completed within three days, with the verification report placed before the trial court before the accused is released.
If the three-day period cannot be complied with, reasons must be recorded and brought to the attention of the concerned court.
Physical Re-Verification of Accused’s Address
Even where the accused’s Indian residential address and other contact information were verified during investigation, those details must be physically re-verified within three days of the bail order and before release.
Disclosure of Income and Bank Accounts
The foreign-national accused must file an affidavit before the concerned court disclosing the source of income or funds in India and details of bank accounts maintained in India.
Embassy to Be Informed
The investigating officer must inform the embassy of the accused’s country of origin, in writing, about the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence.
Centralised Surety Database
The Ministry of Law and Justice, along with the National Informatics Centre, has been directed to create a centralised database containing particulars of foreign-national accused in NDPS cases as well as persons standing as their sureties.
Departmental Action for Fake Sureties
The Court imposed a significant accountability requirement on officials.
Where a surety is later found to be fake despite having been verified, officials involved in the verification process—including police, court and revenue officials—will face departmental inquiry for dereliction of duty. The Ministry of Home Affairs and corresponding State authorities have been directed to formulate necessary guidelines for action against erring officials.
Lien on Surety’s Property
Where a person stands surety for a foreign-national accused, a lien or charge equal to the amount of the surety bond must be created over the surety’s property, including immovable property.
In the event of violation of the bail conditions, the concerned court may, depending on the facts, direct realisation of the lien.
Digital Verification Portal
The IT Committees of all High Courts have been directed to take steps towards creating digital portals for speedy verification and authentication of property and financial documents of sureties. The Supreme Court specifically noted the steps already taken by the Karnataka High Court as a model that could be emulated.
New Form 47A
The Court directed that an additional Form 47A be inserted after Form 47 of the BNSS, 2023, containing enhanced information and declarations relevant to bail and surety verification.
The proceedings arose from Crime No. 37 of 2023 registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 27A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The accused was arrested on March 16, 2023 after approximately 4,935 grams of heroin was recovered from another individual who had arrived at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. According to the prosecution case, the consignment was allegedly intended to be delivered to the accused through an intermediary. The investigation culminated in the filing of a chargesheet on September 6, 2023.
The prosecution material included WhatsApp communications and statements concerning the alleged coordination of the delivery of the narcotics. The forensic examination of a mobile device allegedly revealed chats in which the accused had shared the photograph and contact details of the person carrying the consignment and directed an intermediary to collect it.
The Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Greater Mumbai rejected the accused’s bail application on September 12, 2024. The factors considered included the allegation that he was a mastermind in drug trafficking, his previous conviction in an NDPS case and the prosecution’s claim that he was connected with an international drug-trafficking syndicate.
The accused subsequently approached the Bombay High Court seeking regular bail. The High Court granted relief, observing, among other things, that the prosecution was relying on WhatsApp chats and the statement of a co-accused, and referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The High Court also took into account the accused’s prolonged incarceration of more than two years and the perceived difficulty in completing the trial. Bail was granted subject to conditions including furnishing a personal recognisance bond of ₹25,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount, periodic attendance before the trial court, restrictions on leaving Maharashtra and conditions against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The Union of India challenged the order before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Finds Bail Order Legally Unsustainable
The Supreme Court emphasised that bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is governed by stringent statutory requirements. For offences covered by Section 37, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Supreme Court noted that these are cumulative requirements, rather than alternative conditions. It found that the High Court’s order did not adequately demonstrate how it had arrived at the requisite satisfaction that the accused was not guilty, nor did it sufficiently consider the likelihood of his committing another offence while on bail.
The Court also noted that the accused had previously been convicted in an NDPS case and that the present offence allegedly occurred while he was already on bail in connection with a similar matter. The quantity involved was approximately five kilograms of heroin, while the judgment noted that Section 31A of the NDPS Act applies at the threshold of one kilogram for heroin in the circumstances specified by the provision.
The Court observed that, because the possibility of capital punishment was involved under the statutory framework considered by it, the ordinary protection concerning maximum permissible pre-trial detention under Section 436A of the CrPC and Section 479 of the BNSS could not operate in the same manner in the present case.
Accused “Jumped Bail”
The case took a decisive turn after the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the bail order on September 19, 2025 and directed the authorities to take steps to arrest the accused.
Despite the issuance of a Look Out Notice and other measures, the accused could not be traced. The Supreme Court consequently observed that he had effectively jumped bail. The Court held that the matter had therefore ceased to be merely an appeal against the grant of bail and had become a proceeding for cancellation of bail because the conditions attached to the bail order had been violated.
The Supreme Court accordingly cancelled the bail granted by the High Court.
Fake Surety Becomes Central Issue
What particularly concerned the Supreme Court was the discovery that the surety furnished for the accused appeared to be fictitious.
The authorities found that the address provided by the surety was non-existent. The purported employer stated that the person had never worked there. The bank account details furnished by the surety did not correspond to an account held in his name, while the PAN and Aadhaar documents were found to be forged.
The Court noted that the accused had therefore been released on the basis of sureties that had purportedly undergone verification but were subsequently found to be fake.
The Court stressed that a surety serves a fundamental function in the bail process: ensuring the availability of the accused before the court and investigative authorities. If the surety itself is fictitious, the safeguard underlying the bail mechanism is substantially undermined.
The Court was informed that, in at least 38 cases investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau and nine cases investigated by the DRI, foreign nationals, particularly from Nigeria and Nepal, had allegedly absconded after furnishing sureties that may have been fake. The Court consequently treated the issue as one requiring systemic examination rather than merely a problem confined to the individual case.
Supreme Court Invokes Article 142
The Supreme Court concluded that the existing verification mechanisms varied across jurisdictions and had failed to prevent situations such as the present one.
The Court observed that although different States and High Courts had processes for verifying sureties, the continued emergence of cases involving fake or non-existent sureties demonstrated a gap requiring intervention. It held that foreign-national cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act presented particular concerns because the ordinary verification mechanism may not adequately address the risk of flight.
The Court therefore exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to issue directions intended to operate as safeguards until appropriate legislative or executive measures are put in place.
Court Seeks Technology-Based Surety Verification
Beyond the binding directions, the Supreme Court suggested the development of a Surety Information Management System (SIMS) across States for effective storage and management of surety information.
The Court also observed that specially designated personnel could be assigned to district courts for physical verification of sureties, with practical efforts made to associate at least two independent witnesses during such verification.
The Court further suggested that the Union Government explore Aadhaar authentication for surety verification in accordance with the applicable Aadhaar Authentication for Good Governance Rules. It also suggested that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology consider guidelines for the use of geo-fencing technology in appropriate cases.
Foreign Nationals Cannot Be Denied Bail Merely Because They Are Foreigners
At the same time, the Supreme Court cautioned against treating foreign nationality itself as a ground for denying bail.
The judgment records that foreign nationals are entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Constitution. While the State has sovereign power to regulate, restrict or expel foreign nationals, the mere fact that an accused is a foreigner does not by itself extinguish the right to seek bail. Courts may, however, impose special conditions that are reasonable, proportionate and capable of compliance.
This distinction is significant because the Court’s directions seek to balance two competing considerations: protection of personal liberty and the need to ensure that a foreign-national accused remains available to face investigation and trial.
Court Also Examines Professional Bail Bondsmen
The Supreme Court considered whether a system of professional sureties or bail bondsmen could provide an alternative where foreign nationals face genuine difficulty in finding traditional sureties.
The Court noted that professional sureties could potentially have a role in some circumstances but said that introducing such a system would require an in-depth examination of the relevant laws, socio-economic consequences and comparative models. The Executive would ultimately have to take a decision on the issue.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Contradictory Eyewitness Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Guilt: Supreme Court
