HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2017 OF 2024 Ezobiyalo Ugochukwu Sunday .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Gorakh Hanumant Liman, Advocate for Applicant.

 Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent.

 PSI – Amol Suryavanshi, Mumbra Police Station, Thane City.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : APRIL 28, 2025 P.C . :

1. Heard Mr. Liman, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.

Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent.

2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.1224 of 2021 registered with Mumbra Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

3. Applicant is a foreign national having been incarcerated in prison since 18.12.2021 for past 3 years 4 months 10 days pending trial. He is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the present crime having been apprehended with 100 grams of alleged contraband namely ‘Mephedrone’.

4. Last Roznama indicates that matter is placed for re- conciliation before Court and the fact that the charge is framed or not is not clear.

5. Be that as it may, considering aforesaid long incarceration of Applicant pending trial case of Applicant deserves immediate consideration on facet of long incarceration pending trial.

6. Case of Applicant has been duly considered by this Court (Coram : Manish Pitale, J.) by order dated 02.09.2024 and subsequently by this Court on 27.03.2025. The order dated

27.03.2025 reads thus:-

“1. Heard Mr. Liman, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.

Ganapathy, learned APP for Respondent.

2. Applicant is a foreign national. He is incarcerated in jail pursuant to his arrest on 18.12.2021 of the past more than 3 years 3 months and 9 days pending trial.

3. Mr. Liman draws my attention to the order dated 02.09.2024. He would submit that when this Bail Application was listed before this Court, this Court recorded the contentions of the Applicant and gave certain directions. One of the direction pertains to the Applicant requiring to file an additional affidavit giving certain information as stated in that order.

4. Mr. Liman today would contend that the time for filing the Affidavit as granted by the Court has expired and Affidavit has not been filed till date. He would contend that he has answers to the information sought for by the Court in that order, but desires to argue his case orally across the bar.

5. The Court is not interested in hearing the Applicant’s Advocate orally on any of the grounds for which he was directed by the Court to file the Affidavit. Further if the Applicant does not have the desired information or if Applicant is having inadequate information he should categorically state so on Affidavit to enable the Court to consider his case as directed by the Court. Since Applicant was in jail, the Affidavit could not be filed.

6. By taking a stand that Advocate for Applicant desires to only argue across the bar will not be considered by the Court once the Court has applied its mind, given substantial reasons and only thereafter directed the Applicant to file the Affidavit as per the previous order. Hence, at the request of the learned Advocate for Applicant, the time to file Affidavit is extended by a further period of two weeks from today.

7. Considering his long incarceration pending trial this Court is inclined to hear the present Applicant and decide the same on the next adjourned date.

8. Stand over to 09^th April, 2025. To be placed under the caption ‘First on Board’ on the ‘Supplementary Board’.

7. In view of the above and the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.5 to 7 of the aforesaid order, the case of Applicant is allowed for grant of bail on the ground of long incarceration pending trial and he having substantially complied with the or