[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Blessing Amaka Okonko vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:52819
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1627 OF 2025
Blessing Amaka Okonko ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Khushal Parmar, a/w Anjali More, for the Applicant.
Ms. Manisha R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
RESERVED ON: 01ST DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 03RD DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks her
enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2023
dated 01st January 2023 registered with the ANC, Ghatkopar
Unit, Mumbai, for the 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').
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
2.1 On 31st December 2022, at around 1800 hours,
the officials of the ANC, Ghatkopar Unit, Mumbai, received
information of sale of narcotics in Mumbai City. Armed with
this information, the officials formed a team and set off for
patrolling. They carried with them all the necessary material
required for compliances under the NDPS Act. During
patrolling, they found 2 persons lurking in suspicious
circumstances near the Lotus Prime Cloth Store, Navrang
Compound, Mahim-Sion Link Road Bridge, Mumbai. The
Police stopped their vehicle a little ahead of them, and kept a
watch on the activities of those two persons. It appeared that
the said two persons were waiting for someone. Finally, the
Police officials started to go upto them to make inquiries.
2.2 On seeing the Police, the said two persons scrambled to
disperse. The Police caught up with them and began making
inquiries. The persons gave evasive answers. Finding their
behaviour suspicious, the Police proceeded to call two
panchas. Thereupon, after complying with the requisites of
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
the NDPS Act, they undertook a search of the said persons. 40
grams of Mephedrone ('MD') was recovered from the person
of one of them namely, Nitin Chandrakant Adsul @ Papya. It
was stored in a zip lock plastic pouch. Some cash was also
recovered from him. Further, 110 grams of MD along with
some cash were recovered from the other person namely,
Reddy Mallesh Shadkinur @ Raju. The same was also stored
in a zip lock plastic pouch.
2.3 Papya and Raju were brought to the Police Station and
were arrested. Panchanamas were recorded and other
formalities of the provisions of the NDPS Act were complied.
On interrogation, Raju informed the Police that one lady
namely, Blessing Okonko supplied 150 grams of MD to him
out of which he had sold 40 grams to Papya. This lady is the
Applicant herein.
2.4 At 4:55 am of 1st January 2023, the officials of the ANC,
Ghatkopar Unit, Mumbai set off on patrolling duty to look for
the Applicant at the location revealed by Raju. Raju
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
accompanied the officials. The officials reached the location at
about 6.30 am and laid a trap. The Applicant came near the
location at around 7.15 am. She was pointed out to the Police
by Raju. The Police stopped the Applicant and made inquiries
regarding her identity. She gave evasive answers. She was also
searched after following due process of law. A plastic zip lock
pouch containing 460 grams of MD was recovered from the
pocket of her jacket. Accordingly, the Applicant was also
arrested on 1st January 2023.
3. The Applicant filed an application seeking bail in
the Special Court for NDPS at Greater Bombay, however, by
order dated 17th March 2025, the bail application was
rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court seeking
reliefs as prayed.
4. Mr. Khushal Parmar, learned counsel appeared for
the Applicant. He submitted that the Police have not complied
with the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act; there was
no CDR, bank transactions or any WhatsApp chats of the
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
Applicant with the co-accused; there is non-compliance of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the personal search of the
Applicant was taken by a Senior Police Inspector along with a
lady police Sepoy and a lady panch. He submitted that they
are not authorized to search an accused. He also submitted
that the panchas failed to sign the letter under Section 50 of
the NDPS Act although they have signed the notice under
Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Mr. Parmar further submitted
that the Applicant is in custody for more than 2 years,
however, the trial has not concluded as yet. He thus, prays
that the Applicant be relased on bail. He placed reliance of a
decision of Supreme Court in Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani
@Janani and Anr. v. State through Inspector of Police 1, and in
the matter of Aarif Akram Singh Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra2.
5. Ms. Manisha Tidke, learned APP representing the
State in the matter, submitted that all the compliances under
1 (2004) 12 SCC 266
2 2023: BHC - AS 5149
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
the NDPS Act are made. She pointed to the detailed
panchanamas on record. She also drew my attention to the
letter addressed to the Senior Police Officer by the Officer-in-
Charge of the ANC, Smt. Lata Sutar, conveying to him the
details of the information received and reduced into writing.
The said letter is signed by Smt. Lata Sutar. Thus, she
submitted that Section 42 of the NDPS Act is complied with.
She thereafter pointed to the letter addressed to the
Applicant, apprising of her rights under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act, to which the Applicant consented. Ms. Tidke, thus
submitted that compliance under Section 50 of the NDPS Act
is also complete. Personal search of the Applicant was taken
by an authorized officer. She further submitted that the
Applicant is residing in India unauthorizedly as her visa has
already expired. She also submitted that the charges are
framed and the trial is soon to commence. There is no long
incarceration, hence, the Bail Application be rejected.
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the record with their assistance.
7. The essential objections of Mr. Parmar are that of
non-compliance of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS
Act. As far as Section 42 is concerned, I have gone through
the letter reducing the information received from the co-
accused in writing and forwarded to the Senior Officer. The
entire sequence of events took place in continuation of the
arrest of the co-accused. There was no specific intelligence
regarding the co-accused. The generic intelligence was
regarding narcotic trade being plied in Mumbai City. The
officials thus, set out on patrolling duty and nabbed co-
accused Raju and Papya. There is a panchanama recorded,
detailing the events of the intervening night of 31st December
2022 and 1st January 2023. The arrest of the co-accused
followed by the Applicant's arrest is reduced into writing and
forwarded to Senior Officer. The extract of the Station Diary
also shows an entry recorded at 04:30 a.m. of 1st January,
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
2023, regarding the information given by Raju. There is
compliance of Section 42 of the Act and the objection of Mr.
Parmar regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act is not sustainable.
8. I have perused the decision of the Supreme Court
in Sarija Banu (Supra), which observes, it is necessary for the
Court to consider alleged violation under Section 42 of the Act
at the stage of bail. I have considered the objection raised by
Mr. Parmar in this regard. I have found that Section 42 of the
Act is complied with. Hence, the observations in the said
decision does not apply to the facts of the present matter.
Similarly, the facts in the decision of Aarif (Supra) are distinct
from the present case and hence, inapplicable.
9. As regards, objection of non compliance of Section
50 is concerned, there is a letter apprising the Applicant
regarding her rights, to which the Applicant has penned the
following words, signifying her willingness to be searched by
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
the Police and waiving her right to be searched by the
Magistrate/Gazetted Officer:
" I am aware about my rights. Police can take my personal search. I have
no objection."
The Applicant has signed and dated the said letter. The only
lapse is that the Panch have not signed the said letter.
According to Mr. Parmar, this lapse is sufficient to record
satisfaction that the Applicant has not committed the said
offence. In my view, Section 50 of the Act does not require the
Panchas to countersign the letter under Section 50 of the Act.
The said lapse is thus not sufficient to record a reasonable
belief that the Applicant has not committed the offence.
10. The Applicant's personal search was conducted by
PI - Sutar, who is a Gazetted Officer herself in the presence of
the lady panch and another lady police officer namely Ms.
Korpe in a secluded place. Thus, there is no contranvention of
the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
11. The Applicant is also residing illegaly in India as
her visa stands expired as on date. Hence, it is likely that the
Applicant may not remain present to attend the trial and her
presence will be difficult to secure. The quantity of
contraband recovered from the pocket of the Applicant's
jacket is 460 grams of MD, which is a commercial quantity.
12. The conditions imposed in Section 37 (1) of the
Act is that the Public Prosecutor ought to be given an
opportunity to oppose the bail Application; if opposed by the
Public Prosecutor, the Court must be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty
of such an offence and additionally must be satisfied that the
accused persons is unlikely to commit any offence while on
bail.
13. As observed by the Apex Court in Collector of
Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira3, 'reasonable
grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds. It
3 (2004) 3 SCC 549
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that
the accused is not guilty of the offence. The reasonable belief
contemplated in the provisions requires existence of such facts
and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence.
(emphasis supplied)
14. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable
grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence
as charged. In the facts of the present case, the Applicant was
not only apprehended with a large quantity of MD i.e. 460
grams, but also, she was supplying for sale, the said substance
to dealers, including Raju and Papya. In view of the
magnitude of the offence, the wider societal implications of
releasing the Applicant from whose possession commercial
quantity of narcotic is recovered, the possibility of the
Applicant returning to the same network and re-offending,
and the difficulty in securing the presence of the Applicant to
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
face the trial, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on
bail.
15. Mr. Parmar's objection on various alleged
infirmities in the prosecution case including alleged
procedural lapses, discrepancies in Pancha's signatures on
Section 50 letter etc., relate to evaluation of evidence, which
matters can be properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The
Constitutional Court is not required to decide the question of
guilt or innocence of the Applicant at the bail stage and the
scope of consideration is limited.
16. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the
Applicant is charged with offences punishable with 10 to 20
years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the
Applicant has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long
time. Furthermore, since this Court is of the prima facie
opinion that the Applicant is involved in drug trafficking, no
case is made out for dispensing with the mandatory
requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In any case, in the
rd
3 December 2025
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 901_BA_1627_2025 .doc
facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to record a
finding that there is reasonable ground to believe that the
Applicant has not committed the said offence.
17. The Bail Application is thus, rejected.
18. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
rd
3 December 2025
