Bombay High Court

IFEANYI CHRISTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed by foreign national Ifeanyi Christian Iyida, accused of offences under the NDPS Act, the Registration of Foreigners Act and the Passports Act in C.R. No.370 of 2024. The prosecution alleged procedural lapses, including an unauthorised personal search by a constable and non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, as well as delays in inventory procedures. The court examined the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act but also noted the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention of 1 year 11 months, invoking the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and several Supreme Court precedents granting bail in similar long‑detention cases. Balancing the procedural violations against the constitutional right to liberty, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail, imposing strict conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not address the merits of the underlying criminal charges.

Issues considered

The legality of the search and seizure conducted by a constable under the NDPS Act.
Whether non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and related standing orders warrants denial of bail.
Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which makes certain offences non‑bailable, to the applicant.
Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, justifying bail.
Extent of the court’s discretion to grant bail in non‑bailable NDPS offences despite procedural irregularities.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 21(c), 25, 37, 42, 50, 8(c)
Passports Act, 1967 — s. 14(c)
Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 — s. 5

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
Section 37
foreign national
speedy trial
Article 21
procedural violation
undertrial detention

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH 45-ba-161-26.doc
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.23
15:16:33
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2026

Ifeanyi Christian Iyida .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Mr. Khushal Parmar a/w Mr. Sumant More, Advocates for
Applicant.
 Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent - State.
 Mr. S. S. Shinde, PSI, Taloja Navi Mumbai Police Station present.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.

Newton, learned APP for Respondent - State.

2. By this Bail Application, Applicant is seeking enlargement on

bail in C.R. No.370 of 2024 registered with Taloja Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(b), 21(c), and 25 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short

“NDPS Act”), Section 5 of Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and

Section 14(c) of Passports Act, 1967.

3. The Applicant is one of the three accused persons, arraigned

as Accused No.1. The other two accused persons have been already

enlarged on bail. Applicant is a foreign national. The case of the

prosecution is that he is the seller of the alleged contraband substance.

The recovery of the contraband substance is of intermediate quantity

Meera Jadhav 1 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

which can be seen from the record. However, the compliance of

provisions under Section 42 and Section 50 are not in accordance with

law. A constable is given no right whatsoever to take personal search

as he is not an empowered officer under the NDPS Act. Time and again

this court has passed orders and frowned upon the prosecution for

committing such derelictions.

4. The order passed in the case of Chandrabhan Janardhan

Yadav v. State of Maharashtra1, itself is a reminder to this, that the

statutory provisions under NDPS Act are required to be scrupulously

followed and adopted by the prosecution while effecting search and

seizure. In the present case admittedly the personal search of the

Accused persons is made by a constable which is seen from the record.

Further, there is prima facie violation of the standing order dated

23.12.2022 with regard to the duplicate samples drawn at the time of

inventory panchnama proceedings, as also there is delay of two days in

sending the contraband material to the FSL post inventory panchnama

which does not rule out suspicion expressed by the Applicant.

5. Non compliance of Section 50 is another aspect which is

prima facie seen in the present case when a Gazetted Officer is

required to be part of the raiding team. Merely because the Applicant

is a foreigner and the trial has just commenced and only one witness

has been examined, it cannot be a ground to keep the Applicant in jail
1 2025:BHC-AS:10527

Meera Jadhav 2 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

when there is no progress shown in the trial. The Applicant is

incarcerated for the past 1 year and 11 months. The trial will take its

own sweet time to conclude.

6. It is settled law that a Court while deciding a Bail

Application has to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to

ascertain whether the Accused is likely to appear before the court for

trial. There are other broad parameters also like gravity of offence,

likelihood of Accused repeating the offence while on bail, whether he

would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, his

antecedents which are required to be considered in such cases.

However the metrics of judicial decision making gets amplified or

rather shuttled to another facet when dealing with offences where

Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted. In such cases one has to satisfy

itself with the rigors of the twin conditions as prescribed under Section

37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 reads thus:-

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.:- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences
under section 19 or section 24 or section 27-A and also for
offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail
or on his own bond unless:-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing

Meera Jadhav 3 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law
for the time being in force on granting of bail. ”

7. From the reading of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it becomes

clear that the legislature intends to deny bail to accused alleged to be

in possession of commercial quantity of contraband in absence of court

subscribing to a contrary view, however therefore if seen it does not

rule out the facet of discretion of Court to grant bail. Furthermore the

Court must be satisfied that the accused is unlikely to re-offend. It is

seen that while dealing with Bail Applications the material available

for consideration and adjudication is limited. In such cases, if we look

realistically the provisions of Section 37 leave limited room for a

possibility of granting bail to the accused. However employing such

limitation would create a dichotomy in the current scenario where one

common grievance is made before this Court repeatedly in matter after

matter. It is brought to the notice of the Court that trials are taking

perpetuity to be concluded and prisons are also simultaneously

overcrowded in some segments.

8. Argued before me is a case concerning liberty of an under-

trial who has been incarcerated for almost 1 year and 11 months, a

situation impacting the rights of undertrial conferred by Article 21 of

Constitution to speedy justice as also personal liberty. In so far as the

Meera Jadhav 4 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

power of high courts to grant bail is concerned, when the case is such

that involves a question of personal liberty of an undertrial who is

incarcerated for a very long period, the powers are wide and

unfettered by conditions, the principle rule being that bail is the rule

and refusal is the exception, allowing accused persons to better

prepare their defense.

9. The Supreme Court has also held in a series of judgments

and orders that in situations where the under-trial prisoner / accused

persons have suffered incarceration rather long incarceration for

considerable period of time and there is no possibility of the trial being

completed within the foreseeable future, Constitutional Courts can

exercise power to release the accused under-trial on bail, as bail is the

rule and jail is the exception.

10. In the following decisions of the Supreme Court and various

High Courts concerning such long detention and imprisonment of

undertrial prisoner / accused on being apprehended with commercial

quantity of various contrabands, the Courts have in the backdrop of the

aforementioned propositions exercised its unfettered jurisdiction in

releasing an undertrial on bail on account of long incarceration by

using its discretionary powers:-

10.1. In the case of Nitish Adhikary alias Bapan Vs. State of West

Meera Jadhav 5 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

Bengal2 the Supreme Court considering long incarceration of an

undertrial-accused granted him bail to an undertrial-accused who was

incarcerated for 1 year and 7 months despite being alleged to be in

possession of commercial quantity of contraband.

10.2. In the case of Babor Ali Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal3 the

Supreme Court considering the long incarceration granted bail to an

undertrial-accused who was incarcerated for 1 year and 4 months.

10.3. In the case of Sukhvinder Singh Bittu Vs. State of Punjab4 the

Supreme Court considering long incarceration of an undertrial-accused

granted him bail who was incarcerated for 1 year despite being alleged

to be in possession of commercial quantity of poppy straw.

10.4. In the case of Mohd. Mobin Jahurul Hasan Manihar Vs. State

of Maharashtra5 - this Court on 20.01.2025 considering long

incarceration of the under-trial accused granted bail to him who was

incarcerated for 1 year 11 months. The contraband in question was

220 gms of MD , the commercial quantity of which is 50 gms.

11. In all the above cases the right to speedy justice flowing from

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the foreseeable delay in trial

are considered as imminent grounds for grant of bail apart from the

rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the facts of the said case.

2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2068
3 Criminal Appeal No. 3349 of 2024
4 Cri. Appeal No.1204 of 2024
5 BA No.713 of 2024 decided on 20.01.2025

Meera Jadhav 6 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

12. In view of the above prima facie observation and judicial

pronouncements, Bail Application is allowed subject to the following

terms and conditions:-

(i) Applicant - Ifeanyi Christian Iyida is directed to be

immediately released from prison in connection with

C.R. No. 370 of 2024;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with one or two sureties of the like

amount. It is clarified that no bail bond in respect of an

accused of a non-bailable offence who is a foreign

national such as in the present case, shall be executed

by a Licensed Professional Bail Bondspersons save with

the express permission of the concerned Court

accepting bail and surety bond. This condition is added

in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case

of Union of India Vs. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara &

Ors.6

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Taloja Police Station, once every month on the first

6 SLP (Cri) No(s). 14185 of 2025

Meera Jadhav 7 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

to mark his presence;

(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically

exempted and will not take any unnecessary

adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the

prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;

(v) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior

permission of the Trial Court;

(vi) Applicant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the

Trial Court within a period of one week from his release

from prison;

(vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(viii)Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

of his current address and mobile contact number and /

or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from

time to time, as applicable; and

(ix) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation

of bail granted to the Applicant;

(x) The concerned prosecuting Agency shall immediately

Meera Jadhav 8 of 9
45-ba-161-26.doc

communicate this order of grant of bail to the

concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3

of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 within the

meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. This condition is

added in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in

the case of Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau &

Ors.7.

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any

observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on

the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being

uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made

hereinabove in this order.

14. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above

terms.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

7 Criminal Appeal No.2814-2815 of 2024 decided on 06.01.2025.

Meera Jadhav 9 of 9

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.