Delhi High Court
Chukwnemika vs State on 17 January, 2019
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.01.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 387/2018
CHUKWNEMIKA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
SI Data Ram, Crime Branch.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 33/2017 under Sections
21/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, Police Station
Crime Branch.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that source information was received
that one Nigerian would be coming to supply cocaine in large quantity. A
raiding party was prepared. It is alleged that when they reached the spot,
i.e., Radisson Hotel, they found that one Nigerian person had come in a
taxi. He was identified by the secret informer. It is alleged that the
Nigerian kept waiting for someone, however, nobody came. Thereafter, he
once again sat in a taxi and started going towards Palam Flyover. The
Nigerian was sitting with two more persons. They were intercepted at a red
light and on seeing the raiding party, they attempted to flee, however, they
were caught by the raiding party.
3. It is alleged that after complying with the provisions of Section 50
NDPS Act, a search was conducted and 95 grams of cocaine was recovered
from the possession of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that the quantity allegedly recovered is
less than the commercial quantity. He submits that Section 50 of NDPS has
not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Arif Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand:
2018 SCC Online SC 459 to contend that since Section 50 of NDPS has not
been complied, entire proceedings are vitiated.
5. Petitioner had filed the subject petition in February 2018 when it was
noticed that the passport as well as the Visa of the petitioner had expired.
Petitioner had also been charged under Section 14 of Foreigners Act.
Pending the subject proceedings, the passport of the petitioner has been
renewed and now Visa has been extended and an endorsement has been
made on the Visa that the court case is pending and no exit without court
order. The documents of FRRO are produced in Court. The same are taken
on record.
6. Petitioner has been in custody since 12.03.2017.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the totality of facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that petitioner has
made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on
bail, if not required in any other case.
8. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the trial
or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court
as and when the case is listed before the Trial Court. Petitioner shall not
leave the country without the permission of the trial court. Petitioner shall
furnish his residential address along with his mobile number as also the
mobile number of the surety to the Investigating Officer.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not
have mobile number as of now and he shall intimate the mobile number and
his address as soon as he obtains the mobile connection and acquires a
place of residence.
10. Petitioner shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of all
changes of his residential address as also the mobile number.
11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 17, 2019/st
