Paschal Obinna Nwagbaoso vs Narcotics Control Bureau
2025 Latest Caselaw 3284 Del

Delhi High Court

Paschal Obinna Nwagbaoso vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 20 May, 2025

                          $~63
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                            Date of Decision: 20.05.2025

                          +      BAIL APPLN. 1950/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15740/2025

                                 PASCHAL OBINNA NWAGBAOSO                                   .....Petitioner
                                                     Through:    Mr. Deepanshu Goswami, Advocate.

                                                     versus

                                 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU                               .....Respondent

                                                     Through:    Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms. Tracy
                                                                 Sebastian, Advocate.

                                 CORAM:            JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


                          JUDGMENT                (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks bail in case registered by Narcotics Control Bureau for offence under Section 8C/20(b)/21(b)/22(c)/23/25 & 29 NDPS Act. Broadly speaking, the allegation is that 60 gram cocaine (intermediate quantity) and 55 grams methamphetamine (commercial quantity) were recovered from the accused/applicant.

2. Learned counsel for accused/applicant argues that this is a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail as he is in jail since 08.12.2021 and trial is proceeding at a slow pace. It is also argued that co-accused Aslam

BAIL APPLN. 1950/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages

GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA

has been granted bail, so on parity, the accused/applicant also deserves the same relief. Learned counsel for accused/applicant argues that the entire exercise carried out by the raiding team was not in accordance with law as the provisions under Section 50 & 52 of the NDPS Act were not adhered to. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also argues that the alleged recovery was not from person of the accused/applicant but from his residence where he was taken after being apprehended on the road.

3. As regards Aslam, admittedly nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or at his instance. In contrast, as mentioned above there is recovery of intermediate quantity of cocaine and commercial quantity of methamphetamine at the instance of the accused/applicant from his residence. Therefore, the doctrine of parity would not come into play.

4. As regards the alleged failure to adhere to Section 50 & 52 of the NDPS Act, the same can be examined only at the appropriate stage of the trial and not at this stage, where the rigors of Section 37 of the Act would hold the field.

5. So far as the period of incarceration is concerned, the admitted position is that as on date, seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and it is nobody's case that any of those witnesses has turned hostile to prosecution.

6. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to

BAIL APPLN. 1950/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages

Date: 2025.05.20 17:39:03 +05'30'

grant bail to the accused/applicant. The application is dismissed.

                                                                    GIRISH    GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                    KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.20
                                                                              17:38:46 +05'30'

                                                                               GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                                    (JUDGE)
                          MAY 20, 2025/DR
                          BAIL APPLN. 1950/2025                                             Page 3 of 3 pages