IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU.
CCH.33.
PRESENT:
SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE, LL.M.,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS),
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
Crl. Misc.No.321/2023
Bishop Ikechukwu Promise Onoyo,
S/o.Emmanuel Onoyo, 36 years,
R/at Ground Floor near 2 JPV+967,
Hennur Bande, Hennur Garden,
Hennur, Bangaloreн560043
Native of Nigeria
Petitioner :
(accused )
(By Sri ksv., Adv.)
V/S.
State by NCB Police
Respondent :
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by
the
petitioner
to
enlarge
him
on
bail,
in
NCB..No,48/1/20/2021/BZU of NCB., BZU., registered for
the offences punishable U/Section 8(c) R/W SEC 22(c) 23(c),
27A, 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

2
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:н
3.

The petitioner is innocent of commission of
offence and has been falsely implanted in the case.

The
respondent IO has not complied mandatory provisions of
search and seizure.

As per the case of prosecution, no
contraband article was seized from the person of accused
and no materials to show he was involved in drug
trafficking. The seizure of contraband has not taken place
in the presence of petitioner. The seizure produced before
the court is an unclaimed parcel and petitioner has no
connection with the seizure of Metaamphetamine.

During
the course of investigation IO came to know that parcel was
booked at SD Enterprises, Hebbagodi, Bengaluru.

The
Investigating Officer has not issued any summons to the
owner of the said Enterprises to appear before the officer for
enquiry about the parcel and the same state of affairs
continued for a period of two months.

On 9.2.2021,
summons was issued to Smt. Ramya Receptionist of S.D
Enterprises to appear before IO on 14.12.2021, her
statement came to recorded. There is an inordinate delay of
two months, for which, no explanation has given by IO. The
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.321/2023
3
complainant IO has not issued any summons nor called the
petitioner to appear before him for enquiry about the
present case for a period of three months. But, when the
petitioner came before this Court for appearance in Spl. C.C
87/2021, NCB officers forcibly arrested him and foisted him
in this case.

He has falsely implanted in the case. Now,
the investigation is concluded and final report is filed, his
further detention is not warranted.

Though the alleged
offence is non bailable, but is neither punishable with
imprisonment for life or death sentence. Petitioner is
permanent resident of the address shown in the cause title.
The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any
conditions imposed by this court in the event of grant of
bail.

He is ready to offer surety for his due appearance
before this court. Hence, sought to grant bail.
4.
contended
The prosecution while opposing the bail petition
that
the
I.O
has
seized
565
Amphetamine which is commercial quantity.

grams
of
On 9.2.2021,
basing on the credible information a parcel bearing way bill
No. 6425907445 suspected to containing Amphetamine was
intercepted at DHL office, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru at
4
10.45 a.m.,
A detail mahazar has been drawn.

During
followнup action, it is revealed that, the said parcel is
booked at SD Enterprises, Hebbagodi,
Bengaluru.

statement of Receptionist was recorded on 9.12.2021.

The
In
the said statement, she has stated that, one African person
came with Indian lady to their SD Enterprises and given a
parcel for booking to Australia.

African person given one
Adhaar card in the name of Sunitha Kumar as KYC
document.

Further on showing the photograph of three
Nigerians and three Indian ladies, she has identified
Nigerian persons in the photograph as Bishop Ikechukwu
Promise Onoyo. She has stated that, the said person has
booked the parcel to Australia, thereafter, the present
petitioner was secured, his statement came to be recorded.
He has stated that, he has booked the parcel and thereafter,
he is prosecuted in the case. The allegation leveled against
the accused is serious in nature and it is punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than 10 years which may extend to 20 years and shall also
be liable to fine.

The grounds urged by the petitioner
seeking bail is untenable. Hence, sought to reject the bail.

5
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.321/2023
If the petitioner is granted bail he may tamper with the
prosecution witnesses. He may involve himself in similar
offences. Investigating agency by complying the provisions
prevailed under the act has seized the contraband.

The
petitioner herein would sell the drugs to the younger
generation which may ruin the career of younger generation.
With these specific pleas sought to reject the bail plea of the
petitioner.

5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
records.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as
here under:
1. Whether petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
bail?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
6
8.

POINT NO.1:н The IO of NCB Bangalore., has put
the criminal law into motion.

The gist of the allegation
reads as here under:н
9.

On 9.2.2021, basing on the credible information
a parcel bearing way bill No. 6425907445 suspected to
containing Amphetamine was intercepted at DHL office,
Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru at 10.45 a.m., A detail mahazar
has been drawn.
that,
the
said
During followнup action, it is revealed
parcel
is
booked
at
SD
Enterprises,
Hebbagodi, Bengaluru. The statement of Receptionist was
recorded on 9.12.2021.

In the said statement, she has
stated that, one African person came with Indian lady to
their SD Enterprises and given a parcel for booking to
Australia.

African person given one Adhaar card in the
name of Sunitha Kumar as KYC document.

Further on
showing the photograph of three Nigerians and three Indian
ladies,
she
has
identified
Nigerian
persons
in
the
photograph as Bishop Ikechukwu Promise Onoyo. She has
stated that, the said person has booked the parcel to
Australia, thereafter, the present petitioner was secured, his
statement came to be recorded. He has stated that, he has
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.321/2023
7
booked the parcel and thereafter, he is prosecuted in the
case.
10.

On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, the investigating
agency seized 565 grams of Amphetamine under the seizure
panchanama. As per specification of small and commercial
quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance issued
by Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification
S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 at Sl.No.59 the narcotic drug
н Amphetamine weighing 50 grams is a commercial
quantity. In the instant case the parcel was intercepted on
9.10.2021 at DHL Express India Pvt Ltd., Yeshwanthpur
suspected to be containing Amphetamine.

Basing on the
said information, IO, NCB along with his team intercepted
the
parcel and
found
that
Amphetamine 565 grams.
intercepted.

the
parcel is
containing
On 9.10.2021, parcel is
On 9.12.2021, summons was issued to the
Receptionist of SD Enterprises to appear before the IO on
14.12.2021.

During followнup action, it has come to the
notice of IO that, the parcel was booked at SD Enterprises,
Hebbagodi, Bengaluru.

While recording the statement of
8
Smt.

Ramya
the
Receptionist
of
SD
Enterprises,
photographs were shown to her. In the photographs shown
by the IO, she has identified the present petitioner in the
said photograph. She has stated that, one African person
and a lady came to book the parcel.

Basing on the said
statement, the petitioner in the case was secured by the
Investigating Agency on 19.3.2022. His statement came to
be recorded. Basing on his statement and on the statement
of Smt. Ramya, the petitioner is prosecuted in the case.

11.

On looking to the prosecution paper, there is
inordinate delay in the apprehension of petitioner herein.
The Investigating Agency had shown some photographs to
the Receptionist of SD Enterprises who has identified the
Nigerian person ie., the petitioner herein. The statement of
Ramya came to be recorded after two months of interception
of the parcel.

Except the statement of the Receptionist,
there is no other material collected by the Investigating
Agency to show that, present petitioner came to SD
Enterprises to book the parcel. Even after the statement of
Smt.

Ramya,
petitioner
herein
is
secured
by
the
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.321/2023
9
Investigating Agency only on 19.3.2022 ie., after three
months of recording the statement of Smt. Ramya.

The
inordinate delay in securing the accused in the case is not
explained by the prosecution.

Further, in the summons
issued to the accused u/Sec. 67 of NDPS Act his signature
is not taken. It is also necessary for me to note that, after
physically securing the accused, he was not shown to the
witness Ramya and no test identification is conducted. It is
argued by the prosecution that, accused is prosecuted in
another NDPS case and therefore he is repeated offender
and he is not entitled for the Bail.

The said contention
raised by the prosecution could not be entertained for the
reason that the Investigating Agency apprehended the
accused after several months of interception of the parcel
and on recording the statement of the prime witness Smt.
Ramya. Thus, there is doubt about the parcel being booked
by the petitioner in the said SD Enterprises on the alleged
date. That apart the offences alleged against the petitioner
is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The
investigation in the case is concluded and charge sheet is
filed.

If by imposing stringent conditions petitioner is
10
enlarged on Bail, it would not in any way hamper the trial of
the case.
Thus, I proceed to answer the point for
consideration in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2:н
In the result, I proceed to pass
following:
ORDER
The
Petition
filed
by
the
petitioner
U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is enlarged on bail on
executing
personal
bond
for
a
sum
of
Rs.1,00,000/н with two sureties for the like
sum with following conditions.
1. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this
court without prior permission.
2. He shall not tamper the witness or abscond.
3. He shall not commit similar offence or any
offence while on bail.
4. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
photo ID proof of his sureties.
5. He shall appear before the court on all dates
of hearing.
6. He shall surrender his Passport before the
Court.

11
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.321/2023
7. Breach of any of the conditions by the
petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.
[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and
computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me
in Open Court on this the 25th day of January 2023]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.