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 5th day of APRIL 2024
Crl. Misc.No.3013/2023
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Akanbi Saheed Agholahun,
S/o.Akanbi, 35 years, Lagos 100001,
Passport No.A10668797.
(By NKS., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by DRI., Bangalore.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the
petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in DRI/BZU/SнIV/ENQн
12/INTнNIL/2023
(Spl.C.C.2290/2023)
registered
for
the
offences punishable U/Section 21(c), 23(c) & 28 of N.D.P.S.
Act.

2
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:н
That the petitioner is very innocent and law abiding
citizen. He has not committed any offence much less the
offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated by the
respondent in this case. Though the alleged offence is non
bailable, but is neither punishable with imprisonment for life
or death sentence. The procedure contemplated under N.D.P.S.
Act not followed while recovery. The present petitioner is no
way connected with the drug trafficking in the case, there is no
seizure effected from him.
complied.

The mandatory provisions not
Petitioner is a youngster and law abiding foreign
citizen. He is having deep roots in the society.

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.
3. The prosecution while opposing the bail petition
contended that the I.O has seized 927 grams of cocaine which
3
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.3013/2024
is commercial quantity. The said offences are 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 investigation is completed. 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 from the petitioner. 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.

4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
records.
5. 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?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
4
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:н The IO of DRI Bangalore., has put the
criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as
here under:н
On 27.4.2023 IO., DRI had received Credible information
that one Nigerian National by name Akanbi Saheed Agbolahun
having Passport No.A10668797 carrying huge quantity of
drugs in his body/or baggage and travelling from Addis Ababa
in Ethiopian Airways flight No.ET690 would be attempted to
smuggle narcotic substance into India. He had presented the
information before the higher officer, obtained permission to
conduct raid.

He along with staff reached KIA, Devanahalli,
Bangalore at 6.45 hours and called two panchas. Around 7.20
hours the flight landed at International Airport. After clearance
of immigration and other necessary formalities about 8 hours,
the passenger entered the customs arrival area, the officers
intercepted the said passenger and asked him to show his
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.3013/2024
5
passport for further verification.

On verification of the
passport was issued by Federal Republic of Nigeria and the
name
written
is
Akanbi
Saheed
Agbolahun
and
the
No.A10668797. On enquiry the said person has stated that he
has come to India on medical treatment. On further probing
he has stated that he was scheduled to travel to Hotel Druvas
Residency where he has planed to stay until his return journey
on 6.5.2023 from Bangalore. Then the officers informed him
that they are having information about the said person
carrying contraband substance either in his person or
baggage, the suspect replied negatively. During search of the
bag no incriminatory article is found. Thereafter, the suspect
informed the panch witnesses that he is having stomach
disturbance and not feeling comfortable and requested the
officers for medical aid.

Further he has stated that he has
ingested some capsules which are causing him paid. He went
to wash room for egesting the said capsules which are causing
him severe pain. After ingesting the capsules he has handed
over 23 No., of gelatin like capsules wrapped in transparent
cello tape suspected to be contraband. He has further stated
6
that still some more capsules are there inside his stomach.
After taking permission of court he was taken to hospital. In
the hospital through medical process 63 transparent gelatin
like capsules were removed. The said capsules were opened
and it was found to contain white colour powder. When it was
tested with DD Kit it had answered for the presence of cocaine.
The total weight of cocaine is 927 grams. The contraband
substance is seized under a detail mahazar. The accused was
arrested and prosecuted in F No.DRI/BZU/SнIV/ENQн12(INTн
NIL)2023 for the offences punishable U/s.21(c), 23(c) & 28 of
NDPS Act.

The accused is produced before the court and
remanded to Judicial Custody.

8.

On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, the investigating
agency seized 927 grams of cocaine 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.27 the narcotic drug Ц
7
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.3013/2024
cocaine 02 grams is small quantity and 100 grams is
commercial quantity.

In this case the quantum of cocaine
seized is 927 grams is commercial quantity.

9.

The NDPS Act provides deterrent punishment for
various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances. In the recent judgment of NCB
V/s Mohit Agarwal in Crl.A.1001н1002 of 2022, dated
19.07.2022 in the said case the appellant NCB being aggrieved
by the order of post arrest grant of bail to the accused by the
HonТble High Court of Delhi has impugned order of bail before
the HonТble Apex Court. In the said case HonТble Apex court on
appreciating the various parameters of grant of bail at para 18
of the order has observed has hereunder:
In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available
under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the
facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to
conclude
that
the
respondent
has
successfully
demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for
him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period
of his custody or the fact that the chargeнsheet has been
filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not
considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds
for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.

8
In the said case accused is prosecuted for the offences
punishable U/s.8, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act. Accused No.1 and 2
were apprehended and 20 Kgs of Tramadol tablets were seized.
During follow up action basing on the disclosure statement,
raiding team proceeded to the godown of Pramod Jaipuria and
conducted a search during which a cache of drugs covered
under the NDPS Act, were recovered. The said drugs included
6,64,940 tablets of different psychotropic substances including
Tramadol, Zolpidem and Alprazolam tablets/capsules weighing
around 328.82 Kgs, 1400 Pazinc Injections amounting to 1.4
ltrs and 80 Corex Syrup bottles weighing 8 ltrs. Another 9,900
tablets weighing 990 gms., were recovered during the search
conducted by the NCB officials at the premises of the coн
accused, Manoj Kumar at Ludhiana. In the said case the
accused has been granted bail by HonТble High Court which
has been held to be incorrect it is observed further that the
length of the period of custody of a accused or the fact that the
charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are
by themselves not considerations that can be treated as
9
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.3013/2024
persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In the dictum of Babua Vs., state of Orissa reported in
2001(2)SCC 566 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:н
“3. In view of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act unless there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail alone will entitle him to a bail. In the
present case, the petitioner attempted to secure bail on
various grounds but failed. But those reasons would be
insignificant if we bear in mind the scope of Section 37(1)(b) of
the Act. At this stage of the case all that could be seen is
whether the statements made on behalf of the prosecution
witnesses, if believable, would result in conviction of the
petitioner or not. At this juncture, we cannot say that the
petitioner is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in
the charge are established. Nor can we say that the evidence
having not been completely adduced before the Court that
there are no grounds to hold that he is not guilty of such
offence. The other aspect to be borne in mind is that the
liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of
the society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances are involved, the petitioner would indulge in
activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would
certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons
10
behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings before
the court, and the validity of Section 37(1)(b) having been
upheld, we cannot take any other view.”
As per the enunciation of law in the afore said dictums’ it
is clear that no person shall be granted bail unless the two
conditions are satisfied, i.e., the satisfaction of the court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner
is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. In this case, 927 grams of cocaine. Investigation
is completed and complaint is filed.

At this stage, there is
primafacie material available against the petitioner in regard to
the possession commercial quantity of narcotic drug.

The
learned counsel for petitioner has failed to place any material
before this court that he was not in possession of NDPS article
at the time of his apprehension and search. In the result, I
proceed to hold that the petitioner herein has not made out
any grounds to entertain his plea for bail. Accordingly, I
answer point No.1 in the Negative.
10. Point No.2:н In the result, I proceed to pass following:
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.3013/2024
11
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of
Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.
[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 5th day of April 2024]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*