ARIJIT MUKHERJEEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR

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,


                             Page 2 of 9
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

                             Page 3 of 9
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 Hon’ble Supreme court Criminal
Pradesh                               Appeal No.668 of 2020
Tapan SK and Ors. vs. State of West Hon’ble Supreme Court Criminal
Bengal                              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


                                Page 4 of 9
SA_MANDAWGAD                                   906 BA 4672-24 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC



Avikash Minhas vs. State of Himachal Hon’ble Supreme Court SLP
Pradesh                              (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 Bombay High Court            Criminal
Bureau                                 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

                                 Page 5 of 9
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

                             Page 6 of 9
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

                               Page 7 of 9
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.)




                                                                Page 9 of 9
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/09/2026 14:41:07