(1) crma-37-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.37 OF 2026 IFEANYI PASCOL OBI PRESENTLY LODGED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY VERSUS STATE OF GOA (AS REP OFFICER IN CHARGE) AND ANR. … Mr. Kamalakant Poulekar with Sahil Lavande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Additional Public Prosecutor for State. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER :- 1. The applicant seeks bail in connection with NDPS Case No.21/2020 arising from FIR No.203/2019 registered with Calangute Police Station, Goa for offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w Section 20(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act, 1985”). 2. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information given by Ms. Pragati Malik, Lady Police Sub Inspector attached with Calangute Police Station stating that while she was at Calangute Police Station, Police Sub Inspector Laxmi Amonkar received reliable and specific information that one Nigerian National is involved in drug trading activities. He is residing in Room No.110 situated on first floor of house owned by Mr. Salvador Fernandes from Candolim. In 2026:BHC-GOA:1878 (2) crma-37-2026.odt response to aforesaid information, PSI Laxmi Amonkar reduced said information into writing and submitted copy to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Porvorim-Goa. Immediately, raid was carried at Room No.110. The accused/applicant was found in room. He introduced himself as Ifeanyi Pascol Obi @ Alex. On search of room by raiding party, they found black colour bag pack and noticed cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and eight small packets suspected to be contraband, which were sealed. Those were 1021 grams of Cocaine, 2035 grams of MDMA, 760 grams of Ampethamine, 106 grams of Charas and 1270 grams of Ganja having overall market value of Rs.3,11,94,800/-. The inventory was carried before Magistrate. The CFSL report confirmed composition of substance to be contraband articles as named. Ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed. At present trial is in progress before Additional Sessions Judge, Merces at Goa. 3. Earlier Bail Application filed by applicant before Sessions Court have been rejected on 20.01.2020 and 11.01.2024. Thereafter, CRMAB233/2025 (F) filed before this Court was withdrawn on 10.12.2025 with liberty to file fresh application, if trial did not conclude within five months, which expired on 10.05.2026. Hence, this application. 4. Mr. Kamalakant Poulekar, Advocate appearing for applicant submits that applicant is behind bar since 29.10.2019. The trial in (3) crma-37-2026.odt NDPS Case No.21/2020 is moving with snail speed. The applicant has already suffered incarceration of approximately seven years. The deprivation of right to speedy trial and personal liberty cannot be permitted even in NDPS offences. The applicant cannot be kept languishing in jail even applying rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. In case of undue delay in trial, restriction to grant bail would not fetter Constitutional Court’s ability to grant bail on ground of violation of fundamental rights. In support of his contentions he relies upon observations of Supreme Court in case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India and Others1, Kulwinder Vs. State of Punjab (High Court of Pubjab and Haryana) (CRM-M-64074-2024 dated 10.01.2025), Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha2. 5. Per contra, Mr. Nikhil Vaze, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submits that delay was particularly due to Covid-19 pandemic, which prolonged receipt of examination report from CFSL, Pune. The prosecution has already examined six witnesses and examination of 7th witness is in progress. The applicant is Foreign National, who has been previously convicted for overstay (Foreigners Act). He does not comply with specific information required for Foreign National seeking bail as laid down in case of Obineri Sopuru Isaiah Vs. State (CRMAB/31/2021 decided on 30.11.2021). Further 1 (1994) 6 SCC 731. 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109. (4) crma-37-2026.odt rigors of Section 37 would apply in facts of present case, as applicant was found in possession of huge quantity of narcotics substance. One more offence is registered against him vide Crime No.179/2012 for possession narcotic drugs in variable quantity and prosecution is pending trial before Special Court in CC. No. NDPS Case No.19/2018/DJ-3. According to prosecution, possibility of applicant indulging in similar offence on his release on bail cannot be ruled out. 6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that applicant has been arrested on 29.10.2019 and languishing in jail pending trial till this date. It is approximately six years and 11 months trial has not been concluded against him and same is moving in snail speed. At present, out of 30 listed witnesses, 7th witness is in witness box. The previous Criminal Application No.CRMAB/232/2025 filed before this Court has been withdrawn on 10.12.2025 on assurance of prosecution that trial is likely to be concluded within five months. The applicant was given liberty to move in case failure of prosecution to conclude trial within that period. 7. In this backdrop, deadline of five months is expired on 10.05.2026. Even more four months have been passed till date of filing present application. In this backdrop, it is apposite to refer to observations of Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Muslim Alias Hussain (5) crma-37-2026.odt Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3, particularly paragraph nos.23, 24 and 25, which reads thus: “23. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31.12.2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials. 24. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State as “a radical transformation” whereby the prisoner: “loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes.” 25. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal” (also see Donald Clemmer’s “The Prison Community” published in 1940)/ Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.” 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352. (6) crma-37-2026.odt 8. Similarly, in case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another4, it has been observed that in paragraph nos.19 and 20 as under: “19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea of bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” 9. In case of Rabi Prakash (supra) as regards to twin conditions contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act while considering application for bail of accused, it has been observed as under: “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.” 10. It is trite that, while considering bail petition in case involving commercial quantity of contraband under NDPS Act, Court can grant bail to accused only after hearing Public Prosecutor and having satisfied itself of twin conditions, which are reasonable ground for believing that accused is not guilty of offence, charged/arrest and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, right to life and 4 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) 494. (7) crma-37-2026.odt personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in judicial process, particularly where such delay is neither attributable to accused nor justified at the end of prosecution by cogent reason. The accused cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court of law shall not be complicit in violation of fundamental right and judicious balance has to be maintained while intention behind Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 and right of accused to fair and expeditious trial. The prolonged incarceration due to failure to conclude trial within reasonable time would militate accused’s fundamental right of life and liberty and in such cases, Constitutional Court’s powers to grant bail on fetter by Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 has to be approved. 11. In present case, it is almost seven years accused is languishing in jail. Although he has been previously convicted for offence under Section 7(1)(3) of Foreigners Order, 1948 r/w 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 for staying illegally in Goa/India and further there is one more offence registered against him under NDPS Act, 1985, which is pending, this Court finds that in view of prolonged incarceration for approximately seven years and facts that trial is likely to take much more time looking to number of witnesses to be examined, this Court finds that applicant can be released on bail by putting necessary (8) crma-37-2026.odt conditions that would ensure protection of concern shown by prosecution. 12. In result, Criminal Application is allowed in following terms: (a) The Applicant shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No.21/2020 arising from FIR No.203/2019 registered with Calangute Police Station, Goa, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and producing sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (b) The release of Applicant shall be subject to production of valid passports and visas. Since passports and visas can be applied online, as informed by the learned Public Prosecutor, Applicant will have to apply for same from jail. The Respondent-State authorities shall provide assistance to Applicant. But it is made clear that without producing valid passports and visas, Applicant shall not be released on bail. (c) Upon producing such valid passports and visas, Applicant shall place copies thereof before Trial Court. (d) The Applicant shall register himself on the basis of such valid passports and visas, with Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) at Goa, within two weeks of his release. (e) The Applicant shall use sim cards for mobile phones that are obtained on the basis of such valid passports issued in his (9) crma-37-2026.odt favour and he shall give details of such contact numbers before Trial Court at earliest. (f) The Applicant shall inform place of his residence to Trial Court with valid proof thereof and report any changes in same immediately with appropriate proof each time before Trial Court. If applicant fails to provide such details, he shall be kept in detention centre(s) established by respondent State. (g) The Applicant shall file affidavit before Trial Court within two weeks of his release on bail, stating source of his funds and source of his income in this country, giving details of legal channels including Bank accounts through which he would be operating his finances. (h) The Applicant shall report to Calangute Police Station every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till completion of trial. (i) The Applicant shall not indulge in any activity that would amount to tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. (j) The Applicant shall remain present before Trial Court on each and every date of proceeding and he shall co-operate with such proceedings. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2026