Delhi High Court – Orders
George Uchenna Nwadiegwu vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 8 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025
GEORGE UCHENNA NWADIEGWU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Kushwaha and Ms. Tanya
Kushwaha, Advocates.
versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms.
Shelly Dixit, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 08.07.2025
1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in the proceedings arising
from Crime No. VIII/82/DZU/2021, registered under Section 8, 21(c), 22(c),
25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at
P.S. Narcotics Control Bureau.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is as follows:
2.1 On 23rd November, 2021, acting on confidential information received
by SI Subhash Chand of the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Dwarka, an individual of
African origin, namely George Uchenna (the Applicant) was apprehended in
an open area near the corner of Ganda Nala Road, Lal Farm, A-2 Block,1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 1 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
Bhagwati Garden, along with his Scooty. A personal search of the Applicant
led to the recovery of 270 grams of a substance identified as Heroin,
concealed in a packet in his pocket. Additionally, two polythene packets
weighing 5.166 kg and 5.252 kg, respectively, were recovered from the
Scooty. However, as per the FSL report, only the 270 grams tested positive
for heroin, while the combined 10.418 kg of substance tested negative.
Consequently, the Applicant was placed under arrest.
2.2 In his disclosure statement, the Applicant admitted to the recovery of
the contraband from his possession and stated that it had been supplied to
him by one Gilbert Apeh Emeka. Based on further reliable information
received by the Investigating Agency, Emeka was apprehended on 25th
January, 2022.
2.3 In his statement, Emeka confessed to his involvement in drug
trafficking and acknowledged his association with the Applicant. A search
of Emeka’s residence yielded no narcotic substances. However, two tenant
verification forms, one in the name of Emeka and the other in the name of
Zenith Ugwu @ Jennifer Odih @ Bliss, were recovered and seized. Emeka
revealed that, on instructions from Jude Onydikachi Onoyima, he collected
consignments of narcotic substances from Jude’s associates. He further
stated that he was accompanied by his girlfriend, Zenith, during these
collections.
2.4 On 26th January 2022, acting upon Emeka’s disclosure, a search was
conducted at the aforesaid premises, which was taken on rent in Zenith’s
name. This search resulted in the seizure of 2.250 kilograms of heroin and
500 grams of methamphetamine.
2.5 During the course of further investigation, on the basis of reliable
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 2 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
information, Zenith was intercepted on 25th April, 2022 from the 3rd floor of
WZ-11, Gali No. 14, Guru Nanak Nagar, Tilak Nagar, and notice under
Section 67 NDPS Act was served upon her. In her statement, Zenith
admitted that she was aware of the contraband being stored in her rented
accommodation and acknowledged her involvement in the present case.
Consequently, she was arrested on the same day.
2.6 It is pertinent to note that a previous bail application filed by the
Applicant was dismissed by the ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi, by order dated 11th March, 2025.
Applicant’s Case
3. In the above backdrop, counsel for the Applicant makes the following
submissions, seeking grant of bail:
3.1. The Applicant has been in judicial custody for nearly three years and
eight months. Despite such an extended period of incarceration, the trial has
not progressed beyond the stage of framing of charges. To date, none of the
prosecution witnesses have been examined. This prolonged pre-trial
incarceration amounts to punitive detention, and is violative of the
Applicant’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3.2. The main accused, Gilbert Apeh Emeka, has already been granted
regular bail by this Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2024 in BAIL APPL.
3269/2023. Thus, the Applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.
3.3. According to the Prosecution, the Applicant was apprehended from a
crowded place. Despite this, no independent witnesses have been produced
to corroborate the alleged recovery of contraband from the Applicant. This,
coupled with the absence of videographic or photographic evidence of theBAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 3 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
alleged recovery, raises substantial doubts regarding the legitimacy of the
seizure.
3.4. The Applicant has a clear past record, with no antecedents to his
credit. He undertakes to comply with all conditions that may be imposed by
this Court at the time of granting bail.
3.5. The Applicant was not informed about his grounds of arrest in writing
at the time of his arrest, thereby violating Section 50 of the Cr.P.C.
Respondent’s Case
4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC for the State, strongly
opposes the present bail application. He contends that the contraband
recovered from the Applicant includes 270 grams of Heroin, which qualifies
as commercial quantity. Therefore, the Applicant is required to meet the
twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He further
argues that there is ample evidence on record to implicate the Applicant,
particularly the recovery of the contrabands from his person. Given the
serious nature of the offence, he submits that the Court should not grant bail
to the Applicant.
Analysis
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by both
sides. It is well established through catena of judgments by the Supreme
Court that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of
the accused person at the trial.3 However, since the contraband recovered
from the Applicant clearly falls within the prescribed commercial quantity,
3
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2022) 10 SCC 51.
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 4 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely attracted.
Absence of Independent Witnesses
6. The Applicant has pointed out the Prosecution’s failure to include
independent witnesses during the search and seizure operations, despite the
Applicant being apprehended in a crowded place. The Applicant argues that
the lack of independent witnesses casts doubt on the fairness and credibility
of their case.
7. This Court in Bantu v. State Government of NCT of Delhi,4 has
observed that the absence of independent witnesses, especially in crowded
public places, undermines the transparency of the seizure procedure and
weakens the evidentiary value of the recovery in NDPS cases. In the present
case, the failure to include independent witnesses, despite the raid occurring
in a public location, indicates a procedural irregularity in the search process.
While such procedural omissions may not outrightly invalidate the
Prosecution’s case, they significantly undermine the transparency and
credibility of the search and seizure process. This is particularly relevant at
the stage of grant of bail, as it is essential to ensure that the rights of the
accused are not unjustly curtailed.
Omission of Videography and Photography
8. The Applicant has also highlighted the Prosecution’s failure to
produce any videographic or photographic evidence of the alleged recovery.
9. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated the significance of
video recording the recovery process especially in cases involving
commercial quantities of narcotic substances.5 Specifically, reliance is
4
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4671.
5
Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P., (2018) 5 SCC 311.
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 5 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
placed on the judgement of this court in Gopal Dangi Vs State (NCT of
Delhi),6 wherein the imperative of conducting videography at the spot has
been duly underscored.
10. It is not the case of the Prosecution that the requisite equipment for
video-graphing or photographing the search was unavailable. In fact, it is a
matter of common knowledge that, in today’s time, almost every individual
possesses a smartphone equipped with a camera. While it is true that any
effort made by the Prosecution to conduct the search in the presence of
independent witnesses and to video-graph the spot will ultimately be
assessed during the course of trial, and such omission may not necessarily be
fatal to the Prosecution’s case, nevertheless, at this stage, the benefit of such
lapse cannot be denied to the Applicant.
Delay in Trial
11. What also weighs upon the mind of this Court is the Applicant’s
fundamental right to a speedy and expeditious trial, which must be accorded
due consideration. This right functions as a vital safeguard against unjust
and prolonged incarceration, ensuring that the judicial process does not, in
effect, impose punishment prior to a finding of guilt. The right to a speedy
trial, now firmly entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, is not an abstract or illusory safeguard. It is a
vital facet of the right to personal liberty, that is also extended to non-
citizens, cannot be whittled down merely because the case arises under a
special statute such as the NDPS Act.
12. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where trials under
special laws are unduly delayed, the rigour of stringent bail provisions must
6
2024 SCC OnLineDel 4825
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 6 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
yield to the constitutional promise of liberty. The more rigorous the
provisions of the legislation, the more expeditious the adjudication must be.7
13. In this context, the observations in the recent decision of Mohd.
Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)8 are apposite, where the Supreme Court,
while dealing with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, held that protracted
incarceration as an undertrial, even in cases involving serious offences, must
weigh heavily in favour of granting bail, particularly when such delay is not
attributable to the accused. The relevant observations are excerpted below:
“12. This court has to, therefore, consider the appellant’s claim for
bail, within the framework of the NDPS Act, especially Section 37. In
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial
Prisoners) v. Union of India, this court made certain crucial
observations, which have a bearing on the present case while dealing
with denial of bail to those accused of offences under the NDPS Act:
“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 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 for7
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
8
(2023) 18 SCC 166.
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 7 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
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. It is
because of this that we have felt that after the accused persons have
suffered imprisonment which is half of the maximum punishment
provided for the offence, any further deprivation of personal liberty
would be violative of the fundamental right visualised by Article 21,
which has to be telescoped with the right guaranteed by Article 14
which also promises justness, fairness and reasonableness in
procedural matters.”
13. When provisions of law curtail the right of an accused to secure
bail, and correspondingly fetter judicial discretion (like Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, in the present case), this court has upheld them for
conflating two competing values, i.e., the right of the accused to enjoy
freedom, based on the presumption of innocence, and societal interest
– as observed in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan (“the
concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to
restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and
presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal….”). They
are, at the same time, upheld on the condition that the trial is
concluded expeditiously. The Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v.
State of Punjab made observations to this effect. In Shaheen Welfare
Association v. Union of India again, this court expressed the same
sentiment, namely that when stringent provisions are enacted,
curtailing the provisions of bail, and restricting judicial discretion, it is
on the basis that investigation and trials would be concluded swiftly.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. In the present case, the Applicant has been in custody since 23rd
November, 2021. Although charges were framed on 15th April, 2023, no
prosecution witnesses have been examined thus far. As per the progress
report submitted by the Trial Court in BAIL APPLN. 3906/2024, the delay
in proceedings cannot be attributed to either the accused or the State.
Nevertheless, it is a matter of serious concern that, to date, no prosecution
witnesses have been examined. The delay in the trial is substantial and
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 8 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
protracted. The Applicant has remained in custody for over three years and
seven months, and given the current pace, the conclusion of the trial is likely
to take considerable amount of time.
15. In such circumstances, this Court is required to strike a delicate
balance between the fundamental right to a speedy trial, an essential
component of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, and the stringent conditions prescribed under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. As noted above, the right to life and liberty
cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted and prolonged delays in the
judicial process. While the rigours of Section 37 must undoubtedly be
applied with due care and caution, they cannot be permitted to override the
constitutional guarantee of timely justice. Reliance is placed on the
judgements of Badsha SK v. State of West Bengal,9 Man Mandal & Anr v.
State of West Bengal,10 Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh.11
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, given that the Applicant has
already spent nearly 3 years and 7 months in custody, and the trial is likely
to take considerable amount of time, the Court is of the opinion that the
delay in trial should weigh in favour of the Applicant.
Criminal Antecedents
17. It must further be noted that the Applicant has no criminal
antecedents. The absence of any criminal record is a significant factor,
distinguishing the Applicant from habitual or repeat offenders. This also
supports the conclusion that the Applicant is unlikely to commit any offence
while on bail.
9
2023 SCC OnLIne SC 1867
10
2023 SCC OnLIne SC 1868
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 9 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
Conclusion
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that in
totality of the aforesaid circumstances, including the absence of independent
witnesses and videography of the place of search and seizure, clean
antecedents and prolonged delay in trial, the Applicant has made out a case
for grant of bail. The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR 50,000/- with two sureties of
the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM/Link
MM, on the following conditions:
a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and
when directed by the concerned IO;
b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
c. The Applicant shall, under no circumstance, leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
directed;
e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;
f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
g. The Applicant shall report to the concerned IO on the Fourth Friday
of every month at 4:00PM and shall not be kept waiting for more than one11
2023 SCC OnLine SC 918BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 10 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08
hour for this purpose.
h. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Frank Vitus v.
Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors,12 the State shall immediately
communicate the order granting bail, to the concerned Registration Officer
appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, who
in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including
civil authorities.
19. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged
against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
20. It is clarified that any observations 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 should also not be taken as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
21. A copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information
and necessary compliance.
22. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 8, 2025
12
2025 INSC 30.
BAIL APPLN. 1310/2025 Page 11 of 11
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 11/07/2025 at 22:11:08