SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4672 OF 2024 Dickson Alex … Applicant V/S. Union of India and Anr. … Respondents WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1234 OF 2026 Arijit Mukherjee … Applicant V/S. Union of India and Anr. … Respondents WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3677 OF 2025 Anthony Chijioke Nweke … Applicant V/S. Union of India and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Ayaz Khan a/w. Ms. Zehra Charania, Mr. Dilip Mishra and Ms. Mallika Sharma for the Applicants in all three BAs. Mr. Saket R. Ketkar for Respondent No.1 in BA/4672/24 and BA/1234/26. Ms. Megha Bajoria a/w. Khushi P. Agarwal, for Respondent No.1 in BA/3677/2025. Ms. A.A. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.2–State. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Heard. Perused the applications. Perused the reocrd. 2. The applicant in BA/1234/2026 is the Accused No.1 (A1). The Applicant in BA/4672/2024 is Accused No.2 (A2). The applicant in BA/3677/2025 is Accused No.3 (A3). Page 1 of 9 SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC 3. The applicants seeking their release on bail in connection with C.R. No.127 of 2023, registered with DRI, Mumbai, on the complaint filed by the Intelligence Officer, the Respondent-DRI for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 27A, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). 4. The prosecution case is that, on 14.10.2023, based on secret information, A1 was intercepted at CSMI Airport, Mumbai, on his arrival from abroad, Doha. In the presence of panchas, the pink colored trolley bag in the possession of A1 was searched and, it was found containing 2485 grams of Cocaine. Consequently, A1 was arrested and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. Further investigation revealed the involvement of A2 and A3 in this crime. Therefore, they were arrested and, on completion of investigation, the complaint/charge-sheet came to be filed against the three Accused. The trial Court declined to release the applicants on bail. Hence, these bail applications. The application are opposed by DRI by filing separate affidavits. 5. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for A1 submitted that as alleged, the contraband was found in the possession of the Applicant was a Cocaine, which is a narcotic substance. However, in the cross- examination, PW1-the Chemical Analyzer has admitted that Cocaine is a psychotropic substance. PW1 also admitted that he does not remember the molecular weight of Cocaine and its melting point. He, admits that he did not know the chemical name of Cocaine under the NDPS Act. He submitted that at the time of seizure, the substance was in powder form, whereas, as per the CA report, the sample received was in the nature of a lump. Therefore, SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC the testimony of PW1 cannot be treated as that of an expert. Consequently, it is doubtful that the applicant was found in possession of the Cocaine. Additionally, Mr. Khan submitted that there is no mention in the inventory that label bearing signatures of panchas was affixed on the packet containing the sample for the CA. However, the CA Report shows such a label. Therefore, he submitted it cannot be ruled out that the sample was tampered with before it was sent to the CA. Therefore, it is doubtful the sample drawn during the inventory was the same sample that was sent to the CA. In this background, there is no prima facie case against the applicant of the alleged offence and he is entitled for bail. 6. Mr. Mishra and Ms. Sharma, the learned Advocate for A2 A3 have submitted that, as alleged, on 25.09.2023, A3 had given cash Rs.7,905/- to A2 to transfer the same to Ajay Chandra, a travel agent, to book a flight ticket to travel from Kolkata to Bombay on 26.09.2023. In turn, A2 transferred that amount through the bank account of his live-in partner in the bank account of Smt. Vidya Chandra, who is mother of said Ajay Chandra. They submitted that, A1 had undertaken that journey much before the alleged seizure of the contraband from A1. Additionally, as alleged, A3 had paid cash of Rs.41,600/- to A2 to further transfer the said amount to the bank account of A1 which amount was credited in the bank account of A1 through the bank account of the live-in partner of A2. Mr. Mishra has submitted that said transactions were done through the bank account of live-in partner of A2 who had a license for such money transfers. Therefore, it cannot be an incriminating circumstance against A2 and A3. Moreover, both these monetary transactions even SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC remotely had no nexus with the alleged trafficking of the Cocaine by A1. They submitted that in his statement u/Sec. 67 NDPS Act, A1 has not named the A2 and A3 as his co-accused in the act of smuggling the Cocaine. Therefore, the alleged incriminating statements of A2 and A3 before the officer of the DRI is of no avail for the prosecution. They have submitted that, there is no other evidence against A2 and A3 showing their involvement in this crime. Therefore, both A2 and A3 are innocent and entitled to bail. 7. The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the applicants are in jail since last two years and 8 months. The charge was framed on dated 16.06.2025. Till date only one witnesses is examined and PW-2 is in the box. Mr. Khan submitted that recently, the presiding officer of the trial Court has been transferred and no new officer is posted in that Court. The trial, therefore, is not likely to conclude in the foreseeable future. Consequently, the right to speedy trial is being denied which is turning the applicants’ incarceration punitive and violating their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To substantiate these submissions, reliance is placed on following judgments :- Amit Singh Moni vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Hon’ble Supreme court Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020 Tapan SK and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal Hon’ble Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 2023 Balkishan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Hon’ble Supreme Court Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8415/2024. Mohd. Rizwan vs. State of West Bengal Hon’ble Supreme Court Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1902/2026. Bapan Haldar vs. State of West Bengal Hon’ble Supreme Court SLP (Criminal) No.10561 of 2026 SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC Avikash Minhas vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Hon’ble Supreme Court SLP (Criminal) No.10760 of 2026 Purandar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh Hon’ble Supreme Court SLP (Criminal) Diary Nos.34992 of 2026 Nicklaus Peter Heel vs. State of Goa Bombay High Court Bench at Panaji Criminal Appeal No.19 of 1996 Mirza Qumer Hyder vs. Narcotic Control Bureau Bombay High Court Criminal Appeal No.554 of 2006 8. In reply, Mr. Ketkar and Ms. Bajoria, both learned SPPs have submitted that there is sufficient material against A1 that he had smuggled and was found in possession of the commercial quantity of Cocaine. In his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, A1 has confessed the said fact. Since A2 was not able to open a bank account in his name in India, therefore, he was running a grocery shop in the name of his live-in partner, at Greater Noida and using her bank account, the A2 and A3 managed the travel service and reach the fund to A1. They submitted that, during the house search of A2, 10 passports in the names of 10 different individuals, documents of 12 bank accounts, 4 mobile phones, 8 SIM cards and unaccounted cash of Rs.2,70,000/- was found in the room of A2. About A3, Ms. Bajoria submitted that 8 mobile phones and unaccounted cash of Rs.1,40,000/- were found during the house search of A3. They submitted that the aforesaid facts clearly made out that both A2 and A3 have financed for the trafficking of the Cocaine. Therefore, bail be refused. To Support the submissions learned SPP relied upon following submissions: NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal SLP (Crl.) No. 6128-29 of 2021 UOI v Khalil uddin SLA (Crl.) No.5505-5506/2022 UOI v Ram Samujh Hon’ble Supreme Court Appeal (crl.) 866 of 1999 SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC UOI v. Rattan Malik SLP No. (Crl.) No. 1057 of 2008 State of Kerala v Rajesh SLP No. (Crl.) No. 7309-7312 of 2019 9. On perusal of the record, I have found that there is sufficient material on record which show that 2485 grams of Cocaine was found in the possession of A1 when he had arrived at the Airport. However, as pointed out by Mr. Khan, the learned Advocate, the C.A. has testified that he does not know whether Cocaine is a narcotic substance or psychotropic substance. Secondly, it is pointed that, the Inventory Certificate does not mention that the sample were sealed with the label bearing signature of panchas. Whereas, PW-1, the CA has stated that the sample envelope received to the Office of CA had such a label. This circumstance, according to Mr. Khan, prima facie show that the sample was tampered with. Therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful and it entitles A1 for bail. Yet, in my considered view, said aspects highlighted by Mr. Khan are required to be addressed after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. Otherwise it will be a premature opinion about the merits of the part heard case which would directly impact on its final outcome. In view thereof and, going by the record, in my opinion, there is a prima facie case against the applicant of having possessed and smuggled commercial quantity of contraband. 10. Insofar as A2 and A3 are concerned, except for the aforesaid monetary transactions, there is no other reference in the statement of A1 recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act. Even A1 has not referred the names of A2 and A3, indicating that, they were directly or indirectly involved with him in smuggling the contraband. It is not denied by the Respondent that, A1 had SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC travelled from Kolkata to Bombay on 26.09.2023. However, after that trip, how A2 and A3 were connected to booking of the tickets of A1’s travel to abroad from Mumbai to smuggle the contraband and, return to Mumbai carrying the contraband, is not explained by the Respondent. To connect A2 and A3 with that foreign trip of A1, the Respondent has only highlighted their statements u/Sec.67 NDPS Act, which, without corroborating material, is difficult to form an adverse opinion against them that they had knowledge that A1 would bring the contraband with him. In this background, whether A2 and A3 were involved in this crime of smuggling the Cocaine or not, is a question of trial. 11. Now, turning to the aspect of prolonged incarceration. Admittedly, all three accused are equally incarcerated. However, the case against A1 stands on a different footing compared to the case against A2 and A3. Because, the rigours of Section 37 clearly come in the way of A1. No doubt, the trial Court is presently vacant, but, it cannot be said that no Presiding Officer will be appointed in the foreseeable future. Therefore, at this stage, except for A1, the incarceration of A2 and A3 needs to be considered in their favour. 12. In view thereof, only A2 and A3 may be released on bail. As a result, Crl.B.A. No.1234 of 2026 is rejected. The Crl B.A. No. 4672 of 2024 and Crl B.A. No.3677 of 2025 are allowed. (i) The applicant- Dickson Alex in BA/4672/2024 (A-2) and the applicant-Anthony Chijioke Nweke in BA/3677 of 2025 (A-3) be released on bail in aforesaid FIR registered with Police Station - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai, on their executing P.R. Bond in the sum of SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC Rs.4,00,000/-each with two or more sureties in the like amount. Before accepting the sureties, their genuineness shall be verified and subjected to lien, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors., 2026 INSC 870. (ii) The applicants (A2 and A3) shall mark their attendance at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai on 1st day of each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. (iv) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (v) Before their release on bail, the applicants shall get their travel documents updated for their lawful stay in India and co-operate with the Respondents for their registration in the office of The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Mumbai. (vi) The applicants shall surrender their passport and visa documents with the Investigation Officer. Page 8 of 9 SA_MANDAWGAD 906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC (vii) On being released from jail, the applicants shall furnish their contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (viii) The applicants shall not leave Mumbai till conclusion of the trial. (ix) The applicants shall not indulge in identical activities for which they have been arraigned in this case. (x) In case of breach of any of the conditions above by A2 and A3, the Respondent-DRI will be at liberty to apply the trial Court for cancellation of the bail granted hereby. (xi) It is clarified that any observation made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 13. Bail Applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 14:41:07