$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1016/2026 ELOCHUKWU COLLINS OKAFOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.103/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 21/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] registered at police station Mohan Garden, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He also submits that the applicant has already suffered about 4 years 3 months and 7 days of incarceration as on 02.05.2026. It is submitted that there is no other criminal case pending against the applicant, and the jail conduct of the applicant has been found to be satisfactory. It is further submitted that the trial will take sufficient time in its completion. Out of total 13 witnesses cited, examination of only 6 witnesses has been carried out. 3. The submissions made on behalf of the applicant are vehemently This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:36:26 opposed by learned APP for the State. She submits that considering that a commercial quantity of heroin, i.e. 270 gms, has been recovered from the present applicant, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. It is contended that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. The prosecution story would indicate that on 24.01.2022, a secret information was received at the office of Anti Narcotics Cell, Dwarka that at around 06: 15 PM to 06:30 PM, a foreigner namely Collins, who is involved in the supply of Heroin, would come to supply the said contraband to some person at R-Extension Block, Near Rahul Chowk, and he could be apprehended red-handed with Heroin if a timely raid was conducted. The said information was recorded in the Daily Diary Register vide DD No. 5 dated 24.01.2022 of Anti-Narcotics Cell, Dwarka. Sh. Vijay Singh Yadav, ACP/Operation Cell/Dwarka was informed about the said information and HC Mobin No. 40/DW was authorized to conduct search and seizure proceedings under Section 42 NDPS Act. 6. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the alleged recovery is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would ordinarily govern the consideration of the present application. Equally, however, it is now well settled that the restrictions under Section 37 cannot be construed in a manner so as to completely eclipse the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly where an undertrial has remained incarcerated for an unduly long period and the trial shows no real This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:36:26 prospect of early conclusion. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash versus The State Of Odisha,1 has duly observed: “4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. [Emphasis supplied] 8. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India,2 recognised that while Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, denial of bail coupled with prolonged delay in trial would result in continued deprivation of personal liberty without a timely adjudication of guilt, a consequence incompatible with the guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution: "15. On account of the strict language of the said provision very few persons accused of certain offences under the Act could secure bail. Now to refuse bail on the one hand and to delay trial of cases on the other is clearly unfair and unreasonable and contrary to the spirit of Section 36(1) of the Act, Section 309 of the Code and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. We are conscious of the statutory provision finding place in Section 37 of the Act prescribing the conditions which have to be satisfied before a person accused of an offence under the Act can be released. Indeed we have adverted to this section in the earlier part of the judgment. We have also kept in mind the interpretation placed on a similar provision in Section 20 of the TADA Act by the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569]. Despite this provision, we have directed as above mainly at the call of Article 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 2 (1994) 6 SCC 731 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:36:26 21 as the right to speedy trial may even require in some cases quashing of a criminal proceeding altogether, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225], release on bail, which can be taken to be embedded in the right of speedy trial, may, in some cases be the demand of Article 21. As we have not felt inclined to accept the extreme submission of quashing the proceedings and setting free the accused whose trials have been delayed beyond reasonable time for reasons already alluded to, we have felt that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial would also not be in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21. Of course, some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided in such cases; but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,3 held that statutory restrictions on the grant of bail, including those contained in special enactments such as Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and NDPS Act, do not denude constitutional courts of their power to grant bail where continued incarceration results in a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. “12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act”) which too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252] , Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.” *** “15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the 3 (2021) 3 SCC 713 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:36:26 practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.” [Emphasis supplied] 10. The aforesaid principle has been specifically applied to prosecutions under the NDPS Act by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)4. The Court observed that an interpretation of Section 37 which results in an accused remaining in custody for years awaiting conclusion of trial would militate against the guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21. “22……Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.” 11. Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the applicant has remained in custody since 26.01.2022, i.e., for 4 years 5 months and 27 days. Investigation already stands completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. The trial has progressed at a slow pace and out of 13 witnesses only 6 witnesses have been examined, despite the long period of incarceration undergone by the applicant. Trial doesn’t seem to be concluded in near future and there is nothing on record to indicate that the delay in conclusion of trial is attributable to the applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and her jail conduct has been reported to be satisfactory. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant is directed to be released on 4 (2023) 18 SCC 166 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:36:26 regular bail, subject to such terms and conditions as imposed by concerned Trial Court, having due regard to the fact that the applicant is a foreign national. 13. Nothing stated hereinabove shall, however, be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 14. In light of these observations, the application stands disposed of. 15. Copy of the order to be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 22, 2026/p/sa This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:36:26