Onuoha Blessing Joana Gomes Jo vs The State Of Telangana on 23 July, 2025

Telangana High Court

Onuoha Blessing Joana Gomes Jo vs The State Of Telangana on 23 July, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7788 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter

referred to, as ‘BNSS’) seeking bail to the petitioner/accused No.1

in connection with Crime No.1012 of 2024 of Narsingi Police

Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 27A, 27(a) and 29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2024, on receipt

of credible information that the petitioner and other accused were

in possession of huge quantity of Narcotic drugs, the Detective

Inspector of Police, Narsingi, along with his staff and mediators

went to the subject premises and arrested the petitioner and other

accused, who were in possession of 199.10 grams of Cocaine, and

seized the said drug along with material objects i.e., Republic of

Guine-Bissau Passport bearing No.AAAN02456, iPhone 15 Pro Max

bearing No.9027743962 and 7085997847 (eSIM) and Samsung

Galaxy A71 bearing Nos.8119856076, 7627302409 and WhatsApp

No.+23490661247823 which is used at the time of commission of
2

offence. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime was

registered for the above said offences.

3. Heard Mr.Mohd. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused No.1, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has not committed any offence, and he was falsely

implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that the

police have not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under

the provisions of NDPS Act while conducting search and seizure.

Though the prosecution alleged that 199.10 grams of Cocaine was

seized in the present crime from the possession of the petitioner, it

is below commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on

15.07.2024, and since then he is in judicial custody and the entire

investigation has been completed and police filed charge sheet on

11.12.2024. Hence, further custody of the petitioner is no more

required and question of interference of the petitioner in the

investigation does not arise. He further submitted that the police

have also seized the passport of the petitioner. Hence, question of

flee away from the country does not arise. The petitioner is ready

and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this

Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment
3

of the High Court of Delhi in Ansar Ahmed v. State (Government

of NCT of Delhi) 1.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

that the petitioner has committed the grave offence under the

provisions of the NDPS Act and the police seized contraband,

namely 199.10 grams of cocaine, which is a commercial quantity.

He further submitted that the investigation officer after conducting

investigation filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as

S.C.NDPS No. 167 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional District

and Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar. He further submitted that the

petitioner is also involved in another Crime No.464 of 2019

registered for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 22(c) of NDPS Act.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective

parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it

reveals that the police seized contraband, namely, 199.10 grams of

Cocaine. As per the NDPS Act, 2 grams of cocaine is a small

quantity and 100 grams of cocaine is commercial quantity.

Hence, the contraband seized in the present case is treated as

commercial quantity. Learned Additional public Prosecutor placed

the written instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

1
123(2005) DLT 563
4

Narsingi, which reveals that the petitioner is also accused in

another Crime No.464 of 2019 registered for the offence under

Section 8(c) r/w 22(c) of NDPS Act of the Prohibition and Excise

Station, Dhoolpet. The record further reveals that the investigation

officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the

same was numbered as S.C. NDPS No.167 of 2025 and the same is

pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

L.B.Nagar.

7. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 15.07.2024 and since

then he is in judicial custody and entire investigation has been

completed and charge sheet is filed and therefore, taking into

consideration the period of custody, the petitioner is entitled for

grant of bail is concerned, in Mohit Aggarwal vs. Narcotics

Control Bureau 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph

18, which reads as follows:

“18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail
available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been
satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is
not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully
demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe
Criminal Appeal Nos……….. of 2022 @ Petitions for Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.6128-6129 of 2021 that he

2
(2022) 18 SCC 374
5

is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to
have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his
custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed
and the trial has commenced are by themselves not
considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds
for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act..”

8. In the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

specifically held that the length of the period of custody of the

accused even after filing of the charge sheet or if the trial

commenced, is not a ground for grant of bail, especially the

mandatory requirement as stipulated under Section 37 of the

NDPS Act.

9. In Mohit Aggarwal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

further held that humanitarian ground also cannot be a ground for

grant of bail in NDPS Act cases.

10. In Union of India v. Shri Shiv Shaker Kesari 3, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held in para No.13, which reads as follows:

13. In the instant case, it appears that there was a
statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The
respondent has taken a stand that the same was under

coercion. The acceptability of such a stand is a matter of
trial. Additionally, the High Court has not indicated any
reason as to why it was of the view that the contraband

3
(2008) 7 SCC 798
6

articles were not seized from the exclusive possession of
the accused-respondent.”

11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case as well as the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court as mentioned supra and in view of the mandatory provisions

prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as well as the

contraband i.e. 199.10 grams of Cocaine, seized from the

petitioner, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However,

learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar is

directed to dispose of S.C.NDPS No.167 of 2025 as expeditiously as

possible.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 23.07.2025
pgp