Bengaluru, January 25, 2023 – In a significant ruling concerning a high-profile narcotics case, the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru (CCH-33), Smt. B.S. Jayashree, granted bail to Nigerian national Bishop Ikechukwu Promise Onoyo. The petitioner, who was arrested in connection with the seizure of a commercial quantity of Amphetamine, filed the petition (Crl. Misc. No. 321/2023) under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Onoyo was facing serious charges under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 23(c), 27A, 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, arising from NCB Case No. 48/1/20/2021/BZU. The prosecution alleged the seizure of 565 grams of Amphetamine, which falls under the definition of a “commercial quantity” as per the NDPS Act, an offence that carries a minimum sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a maximum of twenty years.

The Prosecution’s Case and Alleged Seizure

The case initiated when the NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit (BZU), intercepted a parcel at the DHL office in Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru, on February 9, 2021. The parcel, bearing waybill No. 6425907445, was suspected to contain Amphetamine. A detailed mahazar (seizure memo) was drawn up, confirming the presence of 565 grams of the psychotropic substance, a quantity well above the 50-gram commercial threshold specified in the Ministry of Finance notification.

Follow-up action revealed that the parcel had been booked at SD Enterprises, Hebbagodi, Bengaluru. The investigation, however, faced a significant time lag. The statement of Smt. Ramya, the receptionist at SD Enterprises, was only recorded on December 9, 2021, nearly ten months after the interception. In her statement, the receptionist claimed that “one African person came with an Indian lady” to book the parcel to Australia, providing an Aadhaar card in the name of Sunitha Kumar as the Know Your Customer (KYC) document.

The prosecution further stated that upon showing photographs of three Nigerians and three Indian ladies, the receptionist identified Bishop Ikechukwu Promise Onoyo as the Nigerian person who booked the parcel. Onoyo was subsequently “secured” by the Investigating Agency on March 19, 2022, and his statement was recorded, leading to his prosecution.

Defense Arguments Highlighting Procedural Lapses and Delay

The defense counsel for Onoyo argued vehemently against the prosecution’s claims, asserting that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. A central pillar of the defense was the significant and unexplained delay in the investigation and apprehension of the accused.

Key points raised by the defense included:

• No Personal Seizure: No contraband was seized from the person of the accused, and the seizure related to an “unclaimed parcel.”
• Unexplained Delay: There was an “inordinate delay of two months” between the interception (February 9, 2021) and the summoning of the receptionist of SD Enterprises (December 9, 2021), a delay for which the IO provided no explanation.
• Further Delay in Arrest: After the receptionist’s statement was recorded, the petitioner was only secured on March 19, 2022, another delay of over three months, which remained unexplained.
• Coercive Arrest: The defense alleged that the petitioner was forcibly arrested by NCB officers when he appeared before the court for another case (Spl. C.C. 87/2021), suggesting a foisting of the present case.
• Lack of Corroboration: It was argued that except for the receptionist’s statement—recorded after an unexplained two-month delay—no other material was collected to directly link the petitioner to the booking of the parcel. The defense also pointed out that after securing the accused, no Test Identification (TI) Parade was conducted to confirm the receptionist’s identification of the petitioner.

The defense also noted that the investigation was concluded, and the final report (charge sheet) had been filed, rendering further custodial detention unnecessary.

Court’s Rationale and Decision

The Special Judge meticulously analyzed the rival contentions and the prosecution papers. While acknowledging the seizure of a commercial quantity of 565 grams of Amphetamine, the court was compelled to note the procedural discrepancies pointed out by the defense.

The order specifically highlighted the “inordinate delay in the apprehension of the petitioner herein.” The court found the prosecution’s failure to explain the months-long gap between the interception, the recording of the key witness’s statement, and the eventual securing of the accused to be a significant factor.

The court observed, “Except the statement of the Receptionist, there is no other material collected by the Investigating Agency to show that, the present petitioner came to SD Enterprises to book the parcel.” Furthermore, the lack of a Test Identification Parade after the physical securing of the accused raised “doubt about the parcel being booked by the petitioner.”

Despite the seriousness of the offence, the court noted that the punishment is not death or life imprisonment. Considering that the investigation was concluded and the charge sheet was filed, the court determined that by imposing stringent conditions, the petitioner could be enlarged on bail without hampering the trial.

Bail Conditions

The petition was allowed, and Bishop Ikechukwu Promise Onoyo was granted bail upon executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
2. He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
3. He shall not commit similar or any other offence while on bail.
4. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and the 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.
7. Breach of any of the conditions would entail cancellation of bail.

The ruling underscores the importance of prompt and procedurally compliant investigation, even in cases involving commercial quantities under the rigorous NDPS Act, and provides relief to the accused while the matter proceeds to trial.