The Calcutta High Court has rejected the bail application of a man accused of being part of an international cocaine trafficking syndicate that allegedly smuggled narcotics into Kolkata through courier parcels concealed inside soft toys.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held that the accused had failed to overcome the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, considering the materials collected by the investigating agency and the chain of events indicating his alleged involvement in procuring and distributing cocaine.
The Court observed that the prosecution had placed materials connecting the petitioner with two courier consignments containing cocaine, banking transactions and communications with other alleged members of the syndicate.
"Having considered the materials collected by the investigating agency/prosecuting agency in respect of the commercial quantity of cocaine recovered in the instant case and the chain of events, including the modus operandi involved in procuring the contraband, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to overcome the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act," the Court observed.
The petitioner, Majid Ali alias Majit Ali alias Alex, had approached the High Court seeking bail in an NDPS case registered under Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
According to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), acting on specific intelligence, its officers intercepted two persons, Sanu Khan and Md. Mehfoz Haiyat, on August 19, 2025, when they were about to collect a courier parcel from the office of Shree Maruti Courier Service in Kolkata.
The parcel, which had arrived from Delhi, contained a soft toy. Upon opening it, officers recovered 64.87 grams of a white substance that tested positive for cocaine. The two persons allegedly disclosed that they had gone to collect the parcel on the petitioner's instructions.
The following day, the DRI intercepted another courier parcel booked from Delhi in the name of one Mark William at the same courier service. The parcel contained a pink teddy bear, inside which officers recovered three capsules containing 62 grams of cocaine.
On August 20, 2025, the petitioner was apprehended from the Ballygunge-Hazra Road crossing.
During questioning, he allegedly disclosed that a Nigerian woman, Flourish Ezenwa, would be arriving in Kolkata from Delhi by an Air India flight. Upon interception, she was found carrying 131.40 grams of cocaine concealed in her rectum, which she subsequently ejected at the DRI office.
The DRI alleged that the petitioner had engaged several persons, including Sanu Khan, Md. Mehfoz Haiyat, Pramod Shaw and Ayaan alias Laale, to collect cocaine from courier firms and receive narcotics from carriers arriving in Kolkata by air.
The petitioner argued that his implication rested primarily on statements made by co-accused persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which could not be relied upon as confessional evidence in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
He further contended that the WhatsApp chats relied upon by the prosecution did not establish his involvement in the alleged trafficking racket.
It was argued that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam had been produced in support of the electronic evidence.
The petitioner also disputed ownership of the mobile phone and SIM card allegedly seized from him, contending that they belonged to another individual, Gaurav Gupta.
He pointed out that the WhatsApp conversations referred to individuals identified as "Mac" and "Zen", neither of whom had been named as an accused in the present case. He further argued that the chats had also been relied upon in an earlier case in which he had already been granted bail.
Referring to the statement of co-accused Flourish Ezenwa, the petitioner submitted that she had identified one Gonzales as the person from whom she had received the contraband. There was no material establishing any connection between Gonzales and the petitioner, it was argued.
He also contended that even if the banking transactions reflected in the WhatsApp chats were accepted, their cumulative value would correspond to the purchase of only 5 to 10 grams of cocaine, indicating, at best, personal consumption rather than involvement in commercial trafficking.
Relying on Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India, the petitioner argued that WhatsApp messages and disclosures made by co-accused persons, without material establishing a live link with the alleged offence, could not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Opposing the bail plea, the DRI submitted that the two courier consignments containing 126 grams of cocaine had been sent from Delhi by one Sandeep Kumar under the instructions of an individual identified as "Mac".
The agency contended that the mobile number used by Mac, a Nigerian national, was found in the mobile phone seized from the petitioner. According to the DRI, forensic examination of the handset revealed WhatsApp conversations containing courier consignment numbers, banking transactions and details of the alleged modus operandi.
The DRI further submitted that investigations in separate cases had established that Mac was Akande Olamide John, a Nigerian national who was allegedly operating a drug syndicate from Delhi and was presently in judicial custody at Tihar Jail.
It was argued that the petitioner was in regular contact with Mac and Sandeep Kumar and had coordinated the collection of cocaine consignments through his associates in Kolkata.
The agency also relied on the petitioner's alleged disclosure regarding the arrival of Flourish Ezenwa, from whom 131.40 grams of cocaine was subsequently recovered.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashish v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan, the DRI argued that the absence of physical possession of contraband would not, by itself, absolve an accused of the scrutiny required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Court's Findings
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court noted that the prosecution had placed several documents and materials connecting the petitioner with the alleged trafficking operation.
The Court specifically referred to two courier consignment numbers, the Beck Bagan address in Kolkata, a mobile number and bank receipts, observing that all these details were available on and retrieved from the mobile handset recovered from the petitioner.
It further noted that the handset, bearing mobile number 9163675198, was in constant contact with another mobile number, +234 8108148441, allegedly used by Mac.
The Court also took note of additional materials indicating that the petitioner had remained in contact with Sandeep Kumar throughout August 2025, including on August 18 and 19, shortly before the courier consignments were intercepted.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on Bharat Chaudhary, the Court observed that the said judgment had considered additional factors, particularly the chemical examiner's report and the absence of quantitative analysis of the samples.
In the present case, the petitioner did not dispute that the seized contraband was cocaine. Accordingly, the Court held that the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the case.
Ultimately, holding that the materials collected by the investigating agency and the chain of events indicated the petitioner's alleged involvement in trafficking commercial quantities of cocaine, the Court rejected his bail application.
The application was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Majid Ali @ Majit Ali @ Alex v. Union of India
Case No.: CRM (NDPS) 1363 of 2026