Bombay High Court
Chukwuebuka Uwzo Egwo vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 April, 2024
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2024:BHC-AS:15820
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4004 OF 2023
Chukwuebuka Uwzo Egwo ...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2024
Izze Dickson Chidibere ...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Gorakh Liman, for the Applicant in BA No. 4004 of 2023.
Mr. Dilip Mishra i/b. Mr. Ayaz Khan, for the Applicant in BA No. 204
of 2024
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 19, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 1 , 2024
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned
APP for the State.
2. The applicants who are arraigned in Special Case No. 512 of
2022 arising out of C.R. No. 33 of 2022 registered with
Kasarwadavali police station for the offences punishable under
section 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act, 1985) have preferred these
applications to enlarge them on bail.
Vishal Parekar ...1
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
3. On 27th January, 2022 Vikas Ghodke, the then P.I., Crime
Branch, Wagle Estae, Unit V, Thane received an information that on
the very day between 6.30 to 7.00 pm a Nigerian national whose
name and features were described was to arrive near the Bike Suraj
Plaza Hotel, Anand Nagar, Thane to sell Mephedrone (MD) and
Cocaine to his customers. Police conducted a surveillance. At about
7 pm Izze Dickson Chidibere (accused No. 1), the applicant in BA
No. 204 of 2024, came at the said spot in a Hyundai i20 car. He was
accosted. He was apprised of his right to be searched before the
nearest Magistrate or gazetted officer under section 50 of the NDPS
Act, 1985. The accused No. 1 declined to avail the said right.
4. In the personal search of accused No. 1 a small plastic pouch
containing white colour powder was found in the right pocket and a
big plastic pouch containing brown colour powder was found in the
left pocket. The while colour powder was tested with the assistance
of drug detection kit. The test turned out positive for cocaine. It
weighed 4 gms. The brown substance found in the big plastic pouch
turned out to be MD. It weighed 60 gms. The contraband articles
were seized and samples of cocaine and MD were collected. Accused
No. 1 came to be arrested. Initially, accused No. 1 made a disclosure
statement on 28th January, 2022 voluntarily disclosing that he used
Vishal Parekar ...2
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
to buy cocaine from another Nigerian named Ameka and
volunteered to point out the place where he had concealed the
contraband article. Accused No. 1 led the police party to Room No.
203, Building No. 9/J-1, Om Sai Leela S.R.A Society Ltd., Sangharsh
Nagar, Chandivali and took out a plastic bag which was concealed in
the cupboard. The said bag contained cocaine and a small digital
weighing scale. Cocaine weighed 270 gms. The contraband was
seized and samples were collected.
5. Subsequently, accused No. 1 again made a disclosure
statement on 1st February, 2022 to the effect that he had some-
times also purchased cocaine from another Nigerian named
Chukwuebuka Uwzo Egwo (accused No. 2), the applicant in BA No.
4004 of 2023, and volunteered to point out his residence. Izze
Chidibere (accused No. 1) led the police party to room No. 22, Besil
CHS Ltd, Mohili village, Sakinaka. Accused No. 2 was found in the
said room. A small handbag then being carried by accused No. 2 was
searched. It contained 112 gms cocaine and other articles. The
contraband article was seized and the samples were collected.
Accused No. 2 came to be arrested. Post completion of investigation,
charge sheet has been lodged.
Vishal Parekar ...3
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
6. I have heard Mr. Dilip Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant in Bail Application No. 204 of 2024 and Mr. Gorakh
Liman, learned counsel for the applicant in Bail Application No.
4004 of 2023 and Ms. Supriya Kak, the learned APP for the State.
With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the material on record.
7. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.
204 of 2024, submitted that there is a discrepancy in the timeline
which vitiates the search. It was submitted that it is the case of the
prosecution that pursuant to secret information a pre-trap
panchanama was drawn between 4.30 pm to 5.15 pm. Trap
panchanama was conducted between 5.15 to 8.50 pm. However, the
requisition for the electronic weighing scale and articles required to
conduct the trap was made at 9 pm. Thus, it becomes evident that
the articles required for the search and seizure were obtained
subsequent to the alleged search and seizure. This discrepancy
vitiates the entire search. Secondly, there is breach of the mandate
contained in section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. Evidently, the
samples were drawn at the time of alleged search and seizure.
Though inventory is shown to have been conducted after three
months of the alleged seizure, yet the said inventory is of no
Vishal Parekar ...4
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
assistance. Fresh samples were not drawn before the Magistrate
and the C.A report is based on the samples collected at the time of
the alleged search and seizure. This being a fatal infirmity in the
prosecution case, the interdict contained in section 37(1)(b)(ii) can
be said to be overcome.
8. Mr. Gorakh Liman, the learned counsel for the applicant in
BA No. 4004 of 2023 submitted that the applicant was not named in
the FIR. Nor the name of the applicant was immediately disclosed
by accused No. 1. In fact, one Ameka was stated to be the supplier of
accused No. 1 in the first disclosure statement allegedly made by
the applicant/accused No. 1 on 28th January, 2022. It was urged
that to rope in the accused No. 2, another disclosure statement was
obtained from accused No. 1 to the effect that sometimes, he had
purchased the contraband from the applicant. Such disclosure is
vague and cannot be termed a substantive piece of evidence. In any
event, the result of analysis of the sample allegedly recovered from
the possession of accused No. 2 was negative. Thus, the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. In opposition to this, Ms. Supriya Kak, the learned APP
strenuously submitted that the search and seizure has been carried
Vishal Parekar ...5
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
out in adherence to the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985. In the search
of accused No. 1 contraband articles were found. Pursuant to
discovery made by accused No. 1 a huge quantity of cocaine i.e.270
gms, has been recovered. Inventory has also been conducted before
the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, it can not be said that
there is a reasonable ground to believe that the accused are not
guilty of the offence. Thus, the applicants do not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
10. To start with, the claim for bail of Chukwuebuka Uwzo Egwo
(accused No. 2). As is evident, accused No. 2 came to be implicated
on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused No. 1.
In the second disclosure statement under section 27 of the
Evidence Act, accused No. 1 stated that he had sometimes
purchased cocaine from accused No. 2 and volunteered to point
accused No. 2 and also his place of residence. Accused No. 1 led the
police party to the house of accused No. 2. In the search, a small
handbag was found in the possession of accused No. 2. It contained,
inter alia, a plastic pouch containing 112 gm cocaine.
11. Panchanama records that two samples of 5 gms each were
drawn and marked Exh-D1 and D2 and rest of the bulk i.e. 102 gm
Vishal Parekar ...6
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
was marked Exh-D. The forwarding letter dated 3 rd February, 2022
indicates that the sample (Exh-D1) purportedly containing 5 gms
cocaine was forwarded for analysis to C.A. The C.A report dated 20 th
October, 2023 reveals that the said sample (D1) was received on 3 rd
February, 2023. The analysis was started on 20 th March, 2023 and
completed on 31st May, 2023. The C.A. records results of analysis as
under:-
"Results of the test for detection of Heroine, morphine,
cocaine, mephedrone, methamphetamine, ketamine are
negative in exhibit no (1), however sodium and chloride
radicals are detected in it."
12. Evidently, the sample tested negative for any narcotic
substance. Sodium and chloride were detected. Thus, there is
substance in the submission on behalf of the applicant
Chukwuebuka Egwo (accused No. 2) that he was not found in
possession of any narcotic substance. That would negate the charge
for the offence punishable under section 22(c) qua the applicant.
13. As regards the charge under section 29 of the NDPS Act,
1985, the only material against the applicant appears to be the
disclosure statement made by accused No. 1. It is trite a disclosure
statement made by one accused is not legal evidence against non-
maker co-accused. Since the substance allegedly recovered from the
accused No. 2 was not found to a narcotic substance, the disclosure
Vishal Parekar ...7
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
statement made by accused No. 1 can not be said to be distinctly
related to the fact thereby discovered. In the aforesaid view of the
matter, it can be stated with a degree of assurance that the accused
No. 2 has succeeded in making out a substantial probable cause
which justifies an inference that accused No. 2 may not be guilty of
the offences. The first of the twin tests thus stands satisfied. The
Court is not informed that accused No. 2 has any antecedents.
Therefore, a further inference that accused No. 2 may not indulge in
identical offences if released on bail also becomes justifiable.
14. I am, therefore, impelled to exercise the discretion in favour of
Chukwuebuka Egwo (accused No. 2).
15. As regards accused No.1 there is prima facie material to show
that a commercial quantity of narcotic drug was found in
possession of accused No. 1 in the personal search as well as
pursuant to discovery made by accused No. 1. Prima facie there
appears compliance of the provisions contained in section 42 as
well as section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The interdict contained in
section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 comes into play.
16. The endeavour of Mr. Mishra to call in question the sanctity of
Vishal Parekar ...8
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
search and seizure by pointing out the alleged discrepancy in the
time line, does not merit countenance as the said discrepancy, even
if it is assumed to exist, is not of such a nature as to throw the
search and seizure overboard. There is ample contemporaneous
record to show that accused No. 1 was accosted and in his search 4
gm cocaine and 60 gm MD was recovered.
17. This leads me to the ground of non-compliance of the mandate
contained in section 52A of the Act, 1985. Mr. Mishra submitted
that the entire prosecution case rests on the samples which were
drawn at the time of alleged search and seizure. Though inventory
was conducted before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 22 nd April,
2022, after about three months of the search and seizure, yet, no
fresh samples were drawn. Attention of the Court was invited to the
certificate issued by learned Magistrate under section 52A (3) of
the NDPS Act, 1985. Such inventory, according to Mr. Mishra, is of
no evidentiary value. As samples were not drawn in the presence of
the Magistrate, the prosecution case would fall, submitted Mr.
Mishra.
18. On facts, the submissions of Mr. Mishra appear impeccable.
The seizure panchanama indicates that after accused No. 1 was
Vishal Parekar ...9
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
allegedly found in possession of the cocaine and MD, two samples of
cocaine, 1 gm each, were drawn and marked Exh. A1 and A2 and
the rest 2 gm cocaine was kept in an envelope marked Exh. A.
Likewise, two samples of MD; 5 gms each, were drawn and marked
Exh. B1 and B2 and the bulk of MD i.e. 50 gm, was kept in an
envelope marked B. Likewise, upon the recovery of 270 gms
cocaine, persuant to the discovery made by accused No. 1, two
samples of cocaine, 5 gms each were collected and marked Exh.C1
and C2 and the balance bulk (260 gm) was marked Exh. C.
19. The forwarding letter dated 31 st January, 2022 indicates that
three samples namely Exh.A1 purportedly containing 1 gm cocaine,
Exh. B1 purportedly containing 5 gms MD and Exh. C1 purportedly
containing 5 gms cocaine (allegedly recovered from the accused No.
1) were forwarded to FSL. The C.A. report dated 20 th October, 2023
reveals that the samples were received on 31st January, 2022 and
the analysis of the samples (A1) and (C1) revealed cocaine and
phenacetin and cocaine, respectively, and the analysis of samples
(B1) revealed MD. Evidently, the CA report is based on the analysis
of the samples which were drawn at the time of alleged seizure of
contraband from the possession of the accused No. 1.
Vishal Parekar ...10
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
20. It would be contextually relevant to note that when the
inventory was conducted before the learned Magistrate the bulk of
cocaine (A) and (C) and the bulk of MD (B) and reserve samples of
cocaine (A2) and (C2) and MD (B2) were produced before the
learned Magistrate. In the certificate issued under section 52A(3),
the learned Magistrate has in terms recorded that the first sample
(A1), (B1) and (C1) have been sent for analysis to C.A. It does not
appear that the samples were afresh drawn before the learned
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, simply records the weight of
the bulk and reserve the samples which were produced before him.
What consequences follow ?
21. In the case of Alpeshkumar Sureshkumar Jain vs. State of
Maharashtra1, I had an occasion to deal with the ground of non-
compliance of the mandate contained in Section 52A of the Act, in a
little detail. It was observed as under:
"14. Plain reading of the aforesaid provisions would
indicate that when any contraband / narcotic substance is
seized and forwarded to the Officer in-charge of the nearest
police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53
of the Act, the Officer referred to in sub-section (1) of
Section 52-A shall prepare the inventory of contraband /
narcotic substance containing details and the description
of the seized substance, like quality, quantity, mode of
packaging, marks, number or such other identifying
particulars of the contraband or packing in which they are
packed, country of origin and other particulars, as may be
found relevant and make the application to any Magistrate
for the purpose of certifying the correctness of the
Vishal Parekar ...11
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
inventory so prepared and for taking photograph and
certifying such photograph as true and for allowing to
draw representative samples of such substance in the
presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness
of list of samples so drawn.
15. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A enjoins the
Magistrate to allow the application, as soon as may be.
Sub-Section (4) of Section 52-A, which begins with non-
obstante clause qua Indian Evidence Act and the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that every Court
trying an offence under the said Act, shall treat the
inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any
list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified
by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such
offence.
16. In the case of Union of India V/s. Mohanlal and
Anr.2 the Supreme Court held that the procedure
prescribed in Section 52-A is of mandatory nature and it
was obligatory to prepare an inventory of seized
contraband and then make an application to the
Magistrate for the purpose of getting its correctness
certified. The observations in paragraphs 15 to 17 read as
under :
"15.It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)(c)
(supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the
same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-
charge of the nearest police station or to the
officer empowered under Section 53 who shall
prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said
provision and make an application to the
Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the
correctness of the inventory (b) certifying
photographs of such drugs or substances taken
before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw
representative samples in the presence of the
Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the
list of samples so drawn.
16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that
the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the
application. This implies that no sooner the
seizure is effected and the contraband
forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police
Station or the officer empowered, the officer
concerned is in law duty bound to approach the
Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above
2 (2016) 3 SCC 379
Vishal Parekar ...12
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
including grant of permission to draw
representative samples in his presence, which
samples will then be enlisted and the
correctness of the list of samples so drawn
certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the
process of drawing of samples has to be in the
presence and under the supervision of the
Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be
certified by him to be correct.
17. The question of drawing of samples at the
time of seizure which, more often than not, takes
place in the absence of the Magistrate does not
in the above scheme of things arise. This is so
especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of
the Act, samples drawn and certified by the
Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2)
and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute
primary evidence for the purpose of the trial.
Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the
Act that mandates taking of samples at the time
of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the
States claim to be taking samples at the time of
seizure."
17. Following the aforesaid pronouncement, in the
case of Jabir Nader Ali (supra), the learned Single
Judge of this Court (Bharati Dangre, J.) held that the
non-compliance of Section 52-A, within a reasonable
time, gives rise to an apprehension that the sample
which is alleged to have been drawn and sent for
analysis, could have been tampered with and in absence
of certification from the Magistrate that the sample has
been correctly drawn, the benefit of doubt must
necessarily yield in favour of the applicant.
18. At this stage, it is necessary to make a reference
to another decision of the learned Single Judge of this
Court (M.S.Karnik, J.) in the case of Mukesh Rajaram
Chaudhari V/s. The State of Maharashtra3 wherein
after an elaborate analysis of the provisions contained
in the Act, 1985 and the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Union of India V/s. Mohanlal
(supra) and Simaranjit Singh V/s. State of Punjab4 the
learned Single Judge posed a question, whether those
judgments completely take away the discretion of the
Court while considering the grant or refusal of the bail
to an accused under the NDPS Act and the rigours of
Section 37 of the Act stand lifted ?
4 2023 SCC Online SC 906
Vishal Parekar ...13
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
The learned Single Judge answered the question
as under :
"37. It is undoubtedly true that when the
investigating agency has not followed the procedure
under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the deeming fiction
of photographs, samples etc., being treated as primary
evidence as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section
52A would not be available. However, the question is, is
this the only mode in which the prosecution can
establish the charge against the accused? In this
context, two scenarios are likely to arise. In both cases,
let us assume that the prosecution has not followed the
provisions of Section 52A and taken aid of the
Magistrate in drawing the samples and sending for
forensic analysis. In the first scenario, if the seized
substance is still not destroyed and is available in the
custody of the investigating agency, there is nothing to
stop the said agency from following the full gamut of the
procedure provided under Section 52A before
destroying or disposing off the goods and then relying
on the deeming fiction contained in Sub-section (4) of
Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The only question in such
a scenario would be why were such steps taken at a
belated stage. Second scenario would be that the
samples have been drawn, not in the presence of
Magistrate and the goods have been destroyed with the
permission of the Magistrate. In such a situation also,
all that can happen is with the prosecution cannot avail
of the deeming fiction provided in Sub-section (4) of
Section 52A of the NDPS Act. This, however, does not
mean that the prosecution cannot establish the charges
against the accused through the means of other
evidence available with it. For example, if the process of
taking samples may not be in the presence of the
Magistrate, but is shown to be properly followed with
the aid of the support of the panch witnesses which the
court finds believable and reliable, I do not see how the
prosecution case would be destroyed totally. In either of
the scenarios noted above, it would be eventually a
question of what evidence is brought on record and how
such evidence is to be evaluated. Both the aspects are
in relation to conduct of trial. At the stage when the
court is concerned with the question of granting or
refusing bail, this cannot be the sole consideration. It
may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be
the sole consideration on the basis of which the
moment it is shown that the procedure under Section
52A of the NDPS Act is not followed, the accused
automatically becomes entitled to bail as a matter of
right. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
continue to apply. Only when the bail court is satisfied
Vishal Parekar ...14
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
that reasonable grounds of believing that the accused is
not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail, the bail would be
granted. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the
submission of learned counsel for the applicant that in
the present case non-compliance of Section 52A would
entitle the applicant to bail."
19. It must also be noted that in the case of Jabir
Nader Ali (Supra), this Court noted the decision in the
case of Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari (Supra), and yet,
in the facts of the said case, found that an endeavour
was made to comply with the mandate of Section 52-A
in a perfunctory manner, and, thus, exercised the
discretion to release the accused therein on bail.
20. The approach adopted by this Court in the case of
Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari (supra), cannot be said to
be unsustainable. The endeavour of the Court was to
balance the object with which the interdict contained in
Section 37 of the Act, 1985 has been enacted with the
imperativeness of following the mandatory provisions
of the Act, 1985 which provide in built safeguard
against the possibility of planting or false implication.
The insistence on scrupulous compliance of the
provisions which incorporate the safeguards, is
premised on the stringent punishment which the
offences entail and also a statutory bar in the matter of
releasing the accused on bail.
21. A case of complete non-compliance of Section 52-
A and the one with material to indicate that there was a
substantial compliance or there was still possibility of
compliance of Section 52-A of the Act, in my view, stand
on different footings. It is in the aforesaid context,
reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
case of Yusuf @ Asif V/s. State (supra), and Simaranjit
Singh V/s. State of Punjab (supra), would be
advantageous.
22. In the case of Yusuf @ Asif V/s. State (supra), the
Supreme Court after following the decision in the case
of Union of India V/s. Mohanlal (supra), enunciated, as
under:
"16. In the absence of any material on
record to establish that the samples of the
seized contraband were drawn in the presence
of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the
seized contraband was duly certified by the
Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized
contraband and the samples drawn therefrom
would not be a valid piece of primary evidence
in the trial. Once there is no primary evidence
Vishal Parekar ...15
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
available, the trial as a whole stands vitiated."
23. In the case of Simaranjit Singh V/s.
State of Punjab (supra), the Supreme Court
after extracting the observations in
paragraphs 15 to 17 (extracted above) in the
case of Union of India V/s. Mohanlal (supra),
observed that the act of the officer drawing
samples from all the packets at the time of
seizure is not in conformity with the law laid
down by Supreme Court Court in the case of
Mohanlal (supra). That creates a serious
doubt about the prosecution case that
substance recovered was a contraband, and
the Supreme Court, thus, set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence."
22. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mohammed Khalid and another vs. The State of Telangana 5 firmly
settles the issue. The Supreme Court observed, inter alia, as under:-
22] Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the
NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer
PW-5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples
in presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view
of the matter, the FSL report(Exhibit P-11) is nothing but
a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence. The
accused A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot. The
offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) deals with production,
manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport,
import or export of cannabis. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the accused A-3 and A-4 were found in
possession of ganja. The highest case of the prosecution
which too is not substantiated by any admissible or
tangible evidence is that these two accused had conspired
sale/purchase of ganja with A-1 and A-2. The entire case
of the prosecution as against these two accused is based
on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2.
(emphasis supplied)
23. In the case at hand, though inventory has been conducted yet
the prosecution case rests on the samples drawn at the time of
5 Cri. Appeal No(s).1610/2023, Dt.1/3/2024.
Vishal Parekar ...16
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
seizure itself, as is evident from the CA report adverted to above. In
the case of Mohd. Khalid (supra), the Supreme Court has ruled that
such CA report based on the samples not drawn in the presence of
the Magistrate is bereft of any evidentiary value.
24. Thus I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mishra that the
prosecution will have to surmount the challenge of non-compliance
of section 52-A of the Act, 1985, in the matter of not drawing the
sample in the presence of Magistrate and placing reliance on the CA
report based on the samples drawn at the time of seizure, which the
Supreme Court has in a line of decisions, held to be not in
conformity with the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. Resultantly,
the Court may be justified in drawing an inference that the accused
No.1 may not be guilty of the offences under the NDPS Act, 1985.
25. The Court is not informed that the accused No. 1 has
antecedents. Thus, the Court may draw an inference that the
accused No. 2 may not commit an identical offence, if released on
bail. Consequently, the interdict contained in section 37(1)(b)(ii)
may not operate.
26. I am, therefore, inclined to release accused No. 1 also, on bail.
Hence, the following order.
Vishal Parekar ...17
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
ORDER
1] The applications stand allowed.
2] The applicants Chukwuebuka Uwzo Egwo and Izze Dickson
Chidibere be released on bail in C.R. No. 33 of 2022 registered with
Kasarwadavali police station on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.
1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount, each.
3] The applicants shall mark their presence at Kasarwadavali on
the first Monday of every month between 11 am to 1 pm for a period
of three years or till conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier
4] Subject to the deportation proceedings which may be initiated
against the applicants for the overstay in India, if any, the
applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Special Court.
5] The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the
prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of
the case.
6] The applicants shall furnish their contact numbers and
residential addresses to the investigating officer and shall keep him
updated, in case there is any change.
7] The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the
jurisdictional Court.
Vishal Parekar ...18
901-ba-4004-2023.doc
8] By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations
made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of
the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and
the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations
made hereinabove.
Applications disposed.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
Vishal Parekar ...19
