IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Ebera Nwanaforo - Appellant
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3705 of 2020 & Bail Appln. 4187 of 2020
Decided On : 31-05-2022
The applicants were arrested on 21.05.2014 for allegedly being in possession of 1.900 Kgs of Methamphetamine and 1.450 Kgs of Methamphetamine. The applicants were denied bail by the trial court. The applicants filed bail applications before the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were arrested on 21.05.2014 for allegedly being in possession of 1.900 Kgs of Methamphetamine and 1.450 Kgs of Methamphetamine. The applicants were denied bail by the trial court. The applicants filed bail applications before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the bail applications. The High Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail under the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731. The High Court also held that the applicants were not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail under the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731. The High Court also held that the applicants were not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the bail applications.
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. The applicants, Ebera Nwanaforo (applicant of Bail Appln. No. 3705/2020) and Frank Vitus (applicant of Bail Appln. No. 4187/2020) seek the grant of bail in SC No. 9148/2016 submitting to the effect that they have been incarcerated since 21.5.2014 when they were arrested at the Main Road, Mahipalpur, Delhi by the NCB officials in front of Hotel International Inn and a case was registered under Sections 8, 22, 23 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against them. The applicants submit that they have clean antecedents and have never been involved in any criminal case of any nature and are respectable persons.
2. It is further submitted by the applicants that on 21.5.2014, some samples were allegedly recovered from a black coloured bag with the marking `DELL' which was carried by the co-accused Eric Jayden and no such contraband material was recovered from the applicants at the time of their arrest and that they were arrested on the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 of the co-accused Eric Jayden from whom the said black colour bag with the marking "DELL" was recovered from which the contraband material was recovered. The applicants further submit that there is no document that the prosecution has put forth on the record to show that the black coloured bag with the marking `DELL' which was carried by the co-accused Eric Jayden from which the 1.900 Kgs of contraband material was recovered belonged to the applicants and the applicants reiterate that they have no concern or connection with the material recovered. The applicants further submit that they have been incarcerated for more than 8 years now.
3. The applicants submit that as per the status report dated 9.1.2021 submitted by the NCB in Bail Appln. No. 3705/2020 till the said date, out of the cited 34 witnesses as per the complaint, 12 witnesses had been examined and whereas as per the submission of the status report dated 10.3.2021 in Bail Appln. No. 4187/2020, 13 witnesses had been examined. Both the applicants have submitted that none of the witnesses examined so far have testified in relation to any recovery of any contraband from their possession.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that as per the complaint submitted by the NCB itself there was no averment in relation to any specific recovery of any contraband from the applicant Ebera Nwanaforo (applicant of Bail Appln. No. 3705/2020) and that even in relation to the alleged recovery of two blue coloured drums containing a liquid substance from the ground floor of the RZG-50-51, G Block, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony 559/4 New Delhi which had been allegedly rented out to the accused Frank Vitus (applicant of Bail Appln. No. 4187/2020) which was alleged to contain Phenyl-2- Propane, the CRCL report received as per the complaint itself opined that the said samples were not found positive for Phenyl-2-Propanone and are found positive for cellulose and calcium carbonate.
5. It is also submitted by the applicants that the alleged recovery 1.450 Kgs of Methamphatemine from the search of the room No. 402, 4th Floor of H. No. 4/74-A, 402, Bengali Colony, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi, was recovered from the co-accused Christian Chukwuma and not from the applicants. The applicants submit that even for the invocation of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 there needs to be some direct evidence or circumstances which show more than prima facie that there was a conspiracy between two persons. The applicants place reliance on the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujit Tiwari V. State of Gujarat & Anr., dated 28.01.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 1897/2019 and SLP (Criminal) 3478/2019 and Ranjit Singh Brahamjit Singh Sharma V. State of Maharashtra, 2005 AIR SCW 2215 which relates to the provisions of Section 21(4) of the MCOCA, 1999, submitting to the effect that the said provision is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court h
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to liberty, especially in cases governed by stringent bail conditions under special acts like t....
Prolonged incarceration without conviction violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial, warranting bail for undertrials as per established precedents.
Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon fundamental rights, warranting bail despite the serious nature of charges under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in trial and non-compliance of certain provisions of the NDPS Act can violate the constitutional rights of the accused under Article....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can be considered for granting bail under the NDPS Act, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Suprem....
Bail can be granted to undertrials in NDPS cases based on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, in accordance with the principles established in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case and s....
A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercia....
The Court established that an undertrial jailed for more than half the minimum sentence is eligible for bail due to delayed trial, emphasizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.