BONIFACE OKANA AFOversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR

PRASAD                                              917_BA_4158_2025.DOC


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             BAIL APPLICATION NO.4158 OF 2025

Boniface Okana Afo                                      …. Applicant
      V/s.
Union of India and Anr.                                 … Respondents


Ms. Zehra Charania a/w Ayaz Khan, for the Applicant.
Ms. Manisha Shekhar Jagtap, SPP for the Respondent No.1 – UOI.
Ms. Anagha A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State.


                           CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                           DATED : 06th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:-

.        Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2.       Instant Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in
Special     Case    No.2070    of    2024,    arising    out   of   File
No.NCB/MZU/CR-29/2023 registered with Narcotics Control
Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, (“NCB”) for offence punishable
under Sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(“NDPS”), pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge
for N.D.P.S. Cases, at Greater Mumbai.

3.       On 19.10.2023, a specific input was received by Mr. Singh,
Inspector, NCB, Mumbai that a contraband parcel was booked
from Netherlands and it was destined to Ulwe, Navi Mumbai.
Following that input, the team of NCB in presence of panchas
visited at the Foreign Post Office,Ballard Estate, Mumbai and
conducted the search. During the search they found one parcel
containing 4970 MDMA/Ecstasy tablets weighing 2.170 Kgs. The
said contraband was seized. Accordingly, the aforesaid file number

                                Page 1 of 5
PRASAD                                                 917_BA_4158_2025.DOC



came to be registered. During investigation on going through the
mobile No. present on the contraband parcel, its linkage,
intelligence input and financial trail, Sh. Mallick, IO revealed that
the Applicant was involved in this crime. Therefore, on
23.04.2024 house search was conducted at the residence of the
Applicant. The Applicant was present there. Several incriminating
articles, including mobile phones, multiple bank debit cards,
passenger documents and financial records were seized, indicating
Applicant’s role in the drug trafficking conspiracy. Therefore, the
Applicant’s statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act came to be
recorded. Therein, he has admitted that he had procured the
mobile number mentioned on the contraband parcel, he was using
that SIM in the mobile phone seized from him. Therefore, the
Applicant was arrested. On completion of investigation complaint
was filed. The trial Court declined to release the Applicant on bail.

4.       Ms. Charania, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
that, except the statement of the Applciant recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act, there no legally admissible and relevant
evidence      against   the   Applicant      showing     that   he   had
imported/trafficked the contraband from Netherlands, for money.
Therefore, the Applicant is entitled for bail.

5.       In reply, Ms. Jagtap submitted that, mobile no.989####917
was admitted by the Applicant and he had used it in the mobile
phone seized from his possession. Various debit cards were found
in the possession of the Applicant during his room search, which
the Applicant was using for illegal monetary transitions related to
the contraband in question. The Applicant has admitted the
offence in his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act which is
also corroborated with the material collected during investigation.


                               Page 2 of 5
PRASAD                                            917_BA_4158_2025.DOC



Thus, there is a prima facie case of trafficking commercial
quantity of the contraband substance. The Applicant has not
shown that he was not guilty of the crime. Therefore and, having
regard to the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail may be
refused.

6.       The Respondent contended that the Applicant had obtained
mobile no.989####917 which was mentioned on the imported
contraband parcel. However, the Affidavit-in-Reply does not
mention the name of the person from whom that mobile SIM was
obtained nor Ms. Jagtap has claimed that said person was
examined during investigation, to confirm that the Applicant had
obtained that mobile SIM. As alleged, the said mobile SIM was
used in the mobile phone seized from the room of the accused.
However, according to the Respondent, said mobile phone was
given to the Applicant by one woman Christiana. Said Christiana is
not examined. There is no evidence as to when the Applicant came
in possession of the said mobile phone so as to accept that, indeed,
the Applicant had used the said SIM in the seized mobile phone.

7.       Ms. Jagtap submitted that although, no contraband was
recovered during the house search of the Applicant, multiple bank
debit cards and financial records were found in the said room.
When the detailed information of the bank accounts related to the
aforesaid debit cards was called, it revealed that Applicant was
involved in financial transactions for drug trafficking conspiracy.


8.       Nevertheless except the statement of the Applicant recorded
under Section 67 of NDPS Act, nothing is pointed out from the
record to show that the Applicant had visited the said banks for
the purpose of cash deposit or withdrawal. Even if it is accepted
that the Applicant had done monetary transactions in the said
                               Page 3 of 5
PRASAD                                               917_BA_4158_2025.DOC



bank accounts, no specific transaction is pointed out to prima
facie conclude that it was in relation to the contraband
smuggle/trafficked from abroad.


9.       The conspectus of the above discussion is that no prima
facie case is made out against the Applicant of having committed
the present offence. Therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are not applicable in this case.

10.      In view thereof, the Applicant is entitled for bail. Hence,
following Order :-
(i)      The Applicant – Boniface Okana Afo be released on bail in
Special     Case    No.2070      of   2024,    arising   out    of   File
No.NCB/MZU/CR-29/2023 registered NCB, MZU, Mumbai, now
pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge for N.D.P.S.
Cases, at Greater Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii)     The Applicant shall mark his attendance at NCB, Mumbai
Zonal Unit, Thane on 1st day of each calender month between
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

(iii)    The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before
the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court.

(iv)     The Applicant 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 his release from jail, the Applicant shall get his travel
documents updated for the purpose of his lawful stay in India till
conclusion of the trial and deposit his passport with the NCB,
Mumbai.

                                 Page 4 of 5
                                     PRASAD                                             917_BA_4158_2025.DOC



                                     (vi)     On being released from jail, the Applicant shall furnish his
                                     contact number and residential address to the Investigating
                                     Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

                                     (vii) The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for
                                     which he has been arraigned in this case.

                                     (viii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the
                                     observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of
                                     determination to the entitlement for bail and they may not be
                                     construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of
                                     the Applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of
                                     the observations made hereinabove.

                                     11.      Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.



                                                                      (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)


               Digitally signed by
               PRASAD
PRASAD       RAJENDRASING
RAJENDRASING RAJPUT
RAJPUT       Date: 2026.08.11
               15:27:19 +0530




                                                                     Page 5 of 5