The Tripura High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused allegedly linked to the seizure of 30 kilograms of yaba tablets containing Methamphetamine, valued at over ₹30.16 crore, holding that the available material on record disclosed strong incriminating circumstances and that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act were not satisfied.

The bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha has observed that the statement of transport agency employee Debasish Paul disclosed several circumstances linking the accused with the vehicle involved in the seizure. The witness stated that Abdul Rahaman had inquired about the vehicle, supplied permit-related documents through WhatsApp, and that bank account details of Abdul Rahaman had been provided by the vehicle driver to the transport agency for receiving payments.

A bail application was filed on behalf of Abdul Rahaman, who has been in custody since January 5, 2026, in connection with a case registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Agartala Regional Unit. The case arose from the recovery of a massive consignment of yaba tablets concealed inside a specially designed secret chamber in the driver’s cabin of a vehicle bearing registration number TR-04D-1758. The seized contraband was estimated to be worth ₹30,16,77,617.

The accused argued that Abdul Rahaman had been implicated merely on the basis of call detail records (CDRs) and a financial transaction amounting to ₹1,65,810 between him and the principal accused, vehicle driver Jakir Hussain, during the period from January to July 2025. The defence contended that the payments were legitimate business transactions, explaining that Abdul Rahaman operated vehicles engaged in transporting stone chips and occasionally employed Jakir Hussain as a driver, for which he made payments.

It was further argued that the accused had voluntarily appeared before investigators pursuant to notices issued under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and was not arrested during his first appearance. According to the defence, he was unexpectedly arrested during a subsequent appearance despite there being no direct evidence linking him to the seized contraband. Counsel emphasized that no witness had specifically implicated Abdul Rahaman and that he had already spent more than 140 days in custody.

The defence also relied upon several judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, to argue that call records, co-accused statements, or mere suspicion cannot by themselves establish conspiracy or justify continued incarceration in the absence of legally admissible evidence.

Opposing the bail plea, the DRI submitted that the case against the accused was not founded solely on call records. The prosecution pointed to the statement of a transport agency employee, Debasish Paul, and mobile tower location data allegedly placing Abdul Rahaman near the vehicle and the location where the contraband was intercepted. According to the prosecution, this presence was unexplained because the accused’s residence was located far from the place of occurrence.

The prosecution further alleged that during interrogation, Abdul Rahaman falsely claimed that he was at his residence in Udaipur at the relevant time. The DRI also highlighted the accused’s criminal antecedents, stating that one of his vehicles had previously been seized in an NDPS case in Aizawl involving yaba tablets, and that he had earlier been arrested in another case involving transportation of 232 kilograms of ganja.

The Court observed that these facts, when viewed alongside the call detail records and tower location analysis, constituted strong suspicious and incriminating material against the accused. The Court further took note of the prosecution’s submissions regarding the accused’s prior involvement in NDPS-related cases and held that the material on record went beyond mere suspicion.

Referring to the stringent bail restrictions applicable in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances, the Court held that Abdul Rahaman had failed to overcome the “twin test” prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the seized yaba tablets represented a huge commercial quantity with an estimated value exceeding ₹30 crore and that the available evidence did not justify release on bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application and directed that the matter proceed in accordance with law. The Court also disposed of all pending applications connected with the bail proceedings.

Case Details

Case Title: Shahena Begam on behalf of Abdul Rahaman v. Union of India

Citation: JURISHOUR-1564-HC-2026(TRI) 

Case No.: B.A. No. 96 of 2026

Date: 03/06/2026

Counsel For Petitioner:  Siraj Ali, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent:  Koushik Datta, Spl. P.P.

Read More: Enhanced 60% Tax Under Amended S. 115BBE Can’t Be Imposed Retrospectively: Rajasthan HC