EJIKE ELVIN EZEH @ KEVIN@MIKE UBANA S/O RAPHAELversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR

HEMANT
CHANDERSEN            H.C.SHIV                                          901.BA5303.24.DOC
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.07.27                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
15:21:43 +0300
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5303 OF 2024

                      Ejike Kelvin Ezeh @ Kevin                            …Applicant
                      @ Mike Ubama s/o Raphael
                           V/s.
                      Union of India & Anr.                                …Respondents

                                                   WITH
                                  CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1386 OF 2025

                      Nakirijja Alice Alias Elizabeth                      …Applicant
                      D/o Vincent Katwara
                           V/s.
                      Union of India & Anr.                                …Respondents


                      Mr. Dilip Mishra i/b Mr.Ayaz Khan for the Applicant in BA
                      No.5303/2024.
                      Mr. Khushal Parmar and S. More for the Applicant in BA No.1386
                      2025.
                      Ms. Megha Bajoria, Spl.P.P. for Respondent No.1-UOI.
                      Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State in BA No.5303/
                      2024.
                      Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent-State in BA No.1386/
                      2025.


                                                  CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                  DATED :       22nd JULY, 2026
                      P.C. :-

                      1.         The Applicants seek their release on bail in Special Case
                      No.297 of 2022 arising out of file No.DRI/MZU/INT-103/2023 of
                      Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for the offence punishable
                      under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 23(c), 27A, 28, 29 & 30 of the


                                                       Page 1 of 9
                                                    22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                           901.BA5303.24.DOC



Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
“NDPS Act”).

           Respondent DRI has opposed the Applications with the
separate Affidavits of Kumar Ambrish, Dy. Director Intelligence,
DRI Mumbai Zonal Unit.

1.1        Applicants Ejike Kelvin Ezeh @ Kevin @ Mike Ubama s/o
Raphael and Nakirijja Alice Alias Elizabeth D/o Vincent Katwara
are the original Accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively. Hereinafter,
they are being referred to as A3 and A2, for short.

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

3.         The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.08.2023,
intelligence was received by the Respondent-DRI that Accused
No.1- Salty Thomas (A1) would arrive at CSMI Airport, Mumbai
on 18.08.2023 by Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET640 from Addis
Ababa, carrying concealed narcotics. Acting on said information,
when the A1 arrived at CSMI Airport on 18.08.2023 at about 02:10
hours, a DRI team intercepted A1 in the presence of independent
panchas. On examination of a brown bag carried by A1, three
packets containing total 1496 grams of cocaine was found in it.
The said contraband and the travel documents of A1 were seized
recording a Panchnama. During further investigation, the DRI
recorded a statement of the A1 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
therein, he disclosed that the bag containing the cocaine packets
was handed over to him at Addis Ababa by Ms.Jennifer, on the
instructions of Ms.Sofia, who had contacted him through
WhatsApp. He further disclosed that he was instructed to deliver
that cocaine to A2 – an African lady, near Hotel Sapna Residency



                                 Page 2 of 9
                               22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                             901.BA5303.24.DOC



at about 2200 hours on the same day, in exchange for a cash
payment of Rs. 1,35,000/-.

4.         Thereafter, intelligence was also received to the DRI in
respect of A2 which was similar to the information given by A1.
Therefore, on 18.08.2023, between 21.00 hours to 22.00 hours,
DRI team intercepted A2 at the aforesaid hotel. At that time, A2
was carrying a white bag. Upon checking the bag, the DRI found
cash amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- in the bag. Said cash was seized and
Panchnama of that action was recorded. On 19.08.2023, the DRI
Officer recorded a statement of A2 under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act, therein, she disclosed that she was directed by one Mr.
Emma, a Nigerian national, to collect the bag containing cocaine
from A1 in exchange for the aforesaid cash amount and a
commission of Rs. 5,000/-, and thereafter to hand over that bag to
Mr. Emma or his associates. Consequently, both A1 and A2 were
arrested on 19.08.2023.

5.         It is the further case of the prosecution that, on 14.09.2023,
the DRI received intelligence inputs indicating that the final
recipient of the seized cocaine was A3, a Nigerian national residing
in Delhi, who was allegedly a key member of the syndicate
involved in the contraband seized from A1. The intelligence
gathered further suggested that certain evidence relating to the
present case might have been kept at the aforesaid premises of A3.
Said information was duly recorded. Thereafter, on 16.09.2023,
the DRI team proceeded to Delhi and visited aforesaid premises.
A3 was found present there. The team then conducted a search in
that room. Six SIM cards and three mobile phone handsets were
found in the room while conducting the search. Two mobile
phones were found in the possession of A3 during his personal


                                  Page 3 of 9
                               22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                           901.BA5303.24.DOC



search. Therefore, A3 was taken into custody by the DRI officers at
Delhi, where, his statement was recorded under Section 67 of
NDPS Act. Thereafter, transit remand was obtained and A3 was
brought to Mumbai, where his further statement came to be
recorded. Statements of A3 disclosed his complicity in the crime.

6.         Further, the DRI officer recorded the statement of witnesses
and seized necessary travel documents. Investigation revealed
that, A3 had aided smuggling the said cocaine into India by
booking air ticket for A1 and sending him money from India.

7.         On completion of investigation complaint was filed against
the accused persons. The trial Court declined to release the
Applicants on bail. Therefore, the Applicants are before this Court.

8.         Mr.Parmar, learned Counsel for A2 submitted that, as
alleged, on 18.08.2023, A1 had divulged about the involvement of
A2 and, he had also given her name and description. Thereafter,
on 18.08.2023 itself the DRI officer had received the alleged
intelligence about A2 that, on the same day, at about 22.00 hours,
she would come near the said hotel. However, the age and height
of A2 recorded in that intelligence was not provided by A1.
Without having sufficient description of A2, it was not possible for
the DRI team to identify A2 at the said hotel and accost her. Yet,
the DRI officer concerned has not explained as to on what basis
the DRI team identified A2 as the same African lady referred in
the statement of A1. This makes the prosecution’s claim doubtful
that, at the relevant time, A1 had disclosed about the involvement
of A2 in the crime, she was found at the said hotel, the DRI team
identified her and finally, apprehended her alongwith the bag and
seized cash of Rs.1,35,000/- from the possession of A2. Except the
inadmissible statements of A1 and A2, there is no other evidence

                                 Page 4 of 9
                               22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                           901.BA5303.24.DOC



against A2 showing that she was to act as the mediator to deliver
the contraband to the intended person. Mr. Parmar has
highlighted that A2’s statement was recorded after taking her into
custody. This circumstance indicate that the statement A2 was
extracted by exerting pressure. Therefore, A2 is entitled for bail.

9.         Now turning to the submissions made by Mr.Mishra,
learned Counsel for A3. Mr. Mishra submitted that both A1 and A2
had not referred about A3 in their statements under Section 67 of
NDPS Act. Admittedly, the alleged intelligence about involvement
of A3 in this crime was received one month after the arrest of A1
and A2. Therefore, the Respondent’s claim that intelligence was
received against A3 is baseless. Mr. Mishra further submitted that,
although it is the prosecution’s case that an amount of Rs.3,500/-
was transferred in the bank account of A1 by A3 through the
witness Anil Gupta, relevant bank account statement of Anil Gupta
is not produced to show that his bank account was debited by
Rs.3,500/- on that day. He submitted that, as alleged, A3 had
booked the air ticket of A1 through witness Manoj Kohli who had
collected photocopies of passport of A1 and A3 for the purpose of
booking the air ticket for A1. However, no separate seizure was
recorded while taking said photocopies in charge by the DRI
officer. The Respondent contends that after booking the air ticket,
its soft copy was found in the mobile of A3 and its print was taken
from there. But, the source of receiving the soft copy of the ticket
is not identified. All this makes the Respondent’s claim hollow that
A3 had aided the smuggling of the cocaine. As such, A3 is innocent
and deserves his enlargement on bail.

10.        In contrast, Ms.Bajoria, the learned Spl.P.P. submitted that
there is close proximity of time in the chain of the events, such as,


                                 Page 5 of 9
                               22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                          901.BA5303.24.DOC



booking of the air ticket for A1; sending the ticket via an email to
A1; transfer of cash Rs.3,500/- in the bank account of A1;
boarding the flight by A1; leaving the flight from Addis Ababa;
arrival of the flight at Mumbai. The witnesses Anil Gupta and
Manoj Kohli have supported the chain of events. Thus, the said
circumstances and the statements of the witnesses corroborated
the statements of A1 to A3 recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act.
There is significant consistency in the statements of A1 to A3. As
such, there is a clear case against A2 and A3 that they had
conspired with A1 and the wanted accused to smuggle the cocaine.
Therefore, bail be refused to both accused.

11.        I have considered these submissions. There is substance in
the submissions made by Mr. Parmar that in his statement A1 had
only given the name of A2 and, further stated that A2 would be
present near the said hotel with a white carry bag containing cash
Rs.1,35,000/-. Whereas, in the intelligence note about A2, not
only her name but her age and height is also mentioned.
Nevertheless, in the light of the material on record said
inconsistency is not sufficient to reject the contention of Ms.
Bajoria about involvement of A2 in the instant crime. Because, A1
was suppose to execute the said delivery on the basis of the
description of A2 provided to him by Ms. Sofia. As per his
statement under section 67 NDPS, he was informed by Ms. Sophia
that ‘One lady with African ethnicity named Ms. Alice alias
Elizabeth with white carry bag in her hands will be waiting near
Hotel Sapana Residency, Juhugaon Vashi’. A1 himself was not
aware of the true identity of A2. Therefore, the apprehension of A2
was to be conducted on the basis of the limited description and
clues given by A1 and the intelligence note. Besides, there are
more reasons to disagree with the submission by Mr. Parmar that

                                 Page 6 of 9
                              22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                             901.BA5303.24.DOC



A2 was innocent. First in line is the fact that, on the same day of
arrival of A1, the contraband was to be delivered to A2, at 22:00
hours, near the said hotel. Police had no knowledge of the said
fact. Secondly, A2 was the lady of African ethnicity, as informed by
A1 she was having a white carry bag and possessing the amount
matching with the amount which A1 was to get for carrying the
contraband. A2 has not explained as to why she had come near the
said hotel, how she had got the amount of Rs.1,35,000/-, i.e.,
whether some third person gave it to her or through a proper
foreign exchange and, why she had carried that amount.
Therefore, I am of the view that there is a prima facie case against
A2 of having conspired for smuggling the cocaine.

12.        In so far as A3 is concerned, it is true that A1 or A2 had not
disclosed A3’s involvement in the crime. However, pursuant to the
intelligence received in respect of A3, when the DRI team searched
the place where A3 was residing, six sim cards and three mobile
phones were found in his room. Two mobile phones were also
found on his person. It is not the case of A3 that he was engaged in
some business or activity necessitating the use of such mobile
phones and SIM cards.

13.        Secondly, it is pertinent to note that A1, A3 and witness
Manoj Kohli, through whom the air ticket of A1 was booked, were
not acquainted with each other. In such circumstances, it was not
probable that A3 would tell Manoj Kohli to book the air ticket for
A1. However, as disclosed by Manoj Kohli, A3 got that ticket
booked through him and caused him to send it to A3 by an email.
If there was no oblique motive, A1 himself would have booked his
ticket without third person’s help. The fact that Manoj Kohli had
booked the said ticket at the instance of A3 is well supported with


                                  Page 7 of 9
                               22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                          901.BA5303.24.DOC



the photocopies of the passport of A1 and A3 produced by Manoj
Kohli which he had taken when A3 had told him to book the air
ticket for A1. Said fact is also supported with the photo of the
passport of A1 found in the mobile phone seized from A3.

14.        There was no reason for Manoj Kohli to make a false
statement against A3. Additionally, it is a matter of record that the
travel ticket sent by Manoj Kohli through an e-mail, tallies with
the details mentioned in the boarding pass seized by the DRI team
from the possession of A1. This cannot be a coincidence.

15.        Record indicates that, an amount of Rs.3,500/- was sent by
A3 to A1, through the witness Anil Gupta. In addition, certain
transaction receipts of fund transfer to A1 by A3, details of A1’s
bank account, portrait selfies of A1, photographs of A1’s passport
were also found in the personal mobile phone of A3 seized from
his possession by the DRI officer. Considering the material as a
whole, it appears that, A3 used to manage, facilitate and co-
ordinate with other syndicate members to smuggle contraband in
a hidden manner. A3 also used to fund A1 to travel and smuggle
the contraband for money. In view of these circumstances, it
appears that A3 was also involved in the conspiracy to smuggle the
contraband into India through A1 and wanted to deal with it in a
hidden manner involving third person like A2.

16.        The conspectus of aforesaid discussion is that there is a
strong prima facie case against A2 and A3 of having committed the
present offence of smuggling 1496 grams Cocaine. There is
nothing on record to state that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the A2 and A3 are not guilty of the alleged offence.
Considering the conduct of the both these accused, it cannot be
said that they will not commit any offence while on bail. Therefore,

                                 Page 8 of 9
                              22nd JULY, 2026
H.C.SHIV                                            901.BA5303.24.DOC



rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted against them
with full force.

17.        As a result, both the Bail Applications fail and liable to be
rejected. Bail Applications stand rejected, accordingly.

18.        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.



                                   (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                                  Page 9 of 9
                               22nd JULY, 2026