IFEANYI PASCOL OBI PRESENTLY LODGED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODYversusSTATE OF GOA (AS REP OFFICER IN CHARGE) AND ANR

2026:BHC-GOA:1878
                                             (1)                       crma-37-2026.odt




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.37 OF 2026

                  IFEANYI PASCOL OBI PRESENTLY LODGED IN JUDICIAL
                                             CUSTODY
                                              VERSUS
                  STATE OF GOA (AS REP OFFICER IN CHARGE) AND ANR.
                                                 …
               Mr. Kamalakant Poulekar with Sahil Lavande, Advocate for Applicant.
               Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
                                                 …

                                          CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                          DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
               FINAL ORDER:-

               1.    The applicant seeks bail in connection with NDPS Case

               No.21/2020 arising from FIR No.203/2019 registered with Calangute

               Police Station, Goa for offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 22(c),

               20(b)(ii)(B) and 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w Section 20(a) of Narcotic Drugs and

               Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS

               Act, 1985”).


               2.    The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information

               given by Ms. Pragati Malik, Lady Police Sub Inspector attached with

               Calangute Police Station stating that while she was at Calangute Police

               Station, Police Sub Inspector Laxmi Amonkar received reliable and

               specific information that one Nigerian National is involved in drug

               trading activities. He is residing in Room No.110 situated on first floor

               of house owned by Mr. Salvador Fernandes from Candolim.                    In
                               (2)                        crma-37-2026.odt



response to aforesaid information, PSI Laxmi Amonkar reduced said

information into writing and submitted copy to Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Porvorim-Goa. Immediately, raid was carried at Room No.110.

The accused/applicant was found in room. He introduced himself as

Ifeanyi Pascol Obi @ Alex. On search of room by raiding party, they

found black colour bag pack and noticed cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

and eight small packets suspected to be contraband, which were sealed.

Those were 1021 grams of Cocaine, 2035 grams of MDMA, 760 grams

of Ampethamine, 106 grams of Charas and 1270 grams of Ganja having

overall market value of Rs.3,11,94,800/-. The inventory was carried

before Magistrate.      The CFSL report confirmed composition of

substance to be contraband articles as named. Ultimately, charge-sheet

came to be filed. At present trial is in progress before Additional

Sessions Judge, Merces at Goa.


3.    Earlier Bail Application filed by applicant before Sessions Court

have been rejected on 20.01.2020 and 11.01.2024.                 Thereafter,

CRMAB233/2025 (F) filed before this Court was withdrawn on

10.12.2025 with liberty to file fresh application, if trial did not conclude

within five months, which expired on 10.05.2026.               Hence, this

application.


4.    Mr. Kamalakant Poulekar, Advocate appearing for applicant

submits that applicant is behind bar since 29.10.2019. The trial in
                                      (3)                    crma-37-2026.odt



NDPS Case No.21/2020 is moving with snail speed. The applicant has

already suffered incarceration of approximately seven years.                    The

deprivation of right to speedy trial and personal liberty cannot be

permitted even in NDPS offences.               The applicant cannot be kept

languishing in jail even applying rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. In

case of undue delay in trial, restriction to grant bail would not fetter

Constitutional Court’s ability to grant bail on ground of violation of

fundamental rights.             In support of his contentions he relies upon

observations of Supreme Court in case of Supreme Court Legal Aid

Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India and

Others1, Kulwinder Vs. State of Punjab (High Court of Pubjab and

Haryana) (CRM-M-64074-2024 dated 10.01.2025), Rabi Prakash Vs.

State of Odisha2.


5.       Per contra, Mr. Nikhil Vaze, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent-State submits that delay was particularly due

to Covid-19 pandemic, which prolonged receipt of examination report

from CFSL, Pune. The prosecution has already examined six witnesses

and examination of 7th witness is in progress. The applicant is Foreign

National, who has been previously convicted for overstay (Foreigners

Act).      He does not comply with specific information required for

Foreign National seeking bail as laid down in case of Obineri Sopuru

Isaiah Vs. State (CRMAB/31/2021 decided on 30.11.2021). Further
1    (1994) 6 SCC 731.
2    2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109.
                               (4)                        crma-37-2026.odt



rigors of Section 37 would apply in facts of present case, as applicant

was found in possession of huge quantity of narcotics substance. One

more offence is registered against him vide Crime No.179/2012 for

possession narcotic drugs in variable quantity and prosecution is

pending trial before Special Court in CC. No. NDPS Case

No.19/2018/DJ-3. According to prosecution, possibility of applicant

indulging in similar offence on his release on bail cannot be ruled out.


6.    Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that applicant has

been arrested on 29.10.2019 and languishing in jail pending trial till this

date. It is approximately six years and 11 months trial has not been

concluded against him and same is moving in snail speed. At present,

out of 30 listed witnesses, 7th witness is in witness box. The previous

Criminal Application No.CRMAB/232/2025 filed before this Court has

been withdrawn on 10.12.2025 on assurance of prosecution that trial is

likely to be concluded within five months. The applicant was given

liberty to move in case failure of prosecution to conclude trial within

that period.


7.    In this backdrop, deadline of five months is expired on

10.05.2026. Even more four months have been passed till date of filing

present application.    In this backdrop, it is apposite to refer to

observations of Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Muslim Alias Hussain
                               (5)                        crma-37-2026.odt



Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3, particularly paragraph nos.23, 24 and 25,

which reads thus:

     “23. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
     which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
     necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
     time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
     Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often
     than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s
     response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had
     recorded that as on 31.12.2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were
     lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the
     country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165
     were undertrials.
     24. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at
     risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High
     Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State as “a radical
     transformation” whereby the prisoner:
         “loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses
         personal possessions. He has no personal relationships.
         Psychological problems result from loss of freedom,
         status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal
         life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be
         dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary
         standards. Self-perception changes.”

    25. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime,
    “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional
    the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal” (also see
    Donald Clemmer’s “The Prison Community” published in
    1940)/ Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the
    accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss
    of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well
    as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
    therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the
    event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and
    ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact
    stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”




3   2023 SCC OnLine SC 352.
                                    (6)                    crma-37-2026.odt



8.       Similarly, in case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another4, it has been observed that in paragraph

nos.19 and 20 as under:

      “19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
      concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the
      fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as
      enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or
      any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea of bail
      on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of
      Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

      20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an
      accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal
      jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until
      proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever
      stringent the penal law may be.”

9.       In case of Rabi Prakash (supra) as regards to twin conditions

contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act while considering application for

bail of accused, it has been observed as under:

      “The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the
      most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21
      of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional
      liberty must override the statutory embargo created under
      Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”

10.      It is trite that, while considering bail petition in case involving

commercial quantity of contraband under NDPS Act, Court can grant

bail to accused only after hearing Public Prosecutor and having satisfied

itself of twin conditions, which are reasonable ground for believing that

accused is not guilty of offence, charged/arrest and that he is not likely

to commit any offence while on bail.          However, right to life and


4    2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) 494.
                              (7)                        crma-37-2026.odt



personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in

judicial process, particularly where such delay is neither attributable to

accused nor justified at the end of prosecution by cogent reason. The

accused cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by

taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The Court of law shall not be complicit in violation of fundamental right

and judicious balance has to be maintained while intention behind

Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 and right of accused to fair and

expeditious trial. The prolonged incarceration due to failure to conclude

trial within reasonable time would militate accused’s fundamental right

of life and liberty and in such cases, Constitutional Court’s powers to

grant bail on fetter by Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 has to be

approved.


11.   In present case, it is almost seven years accused is languishing in

jail. Although he has been previously convicted for offence under

Section 7(1)(3) of Foreigners Order, 1948 r/w 14 of Foreigners Act,

1946 for staying illegally in Goa/India and further there is one more

offence registered against him under NDPS Act, 1985, which is

pending, this Court finds that in view of prolonged incarceration for

approximately seven years and facts that trial is likely to take much

more time looking to number of witnesses to be examined, this Court

finds that applicant can be released on bail by putting necessary
                              (8)                       crma-37-2026.odt



conditions that would ensure protection of concern shown by

prosecution.


12.   In result, Criminal Application is allowed in following terms:

  (a) The Applicant shall be released on bail in connection with

      NDPS Case No.21/2020 arising from FIR No.203/2019

      registered with Calangute Police Station, Goa, on furnishing

      PR bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and producing sureties of the like

      amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

  (b) The release of Applicant shall be subject to production of valid

      passports and visas. Since passports and visas can be applied

      online, as informed by the learned Public Prosecutor,

      Applicant will have to apply for same from jail. The

      Respondent-State authorities shall provide assistance to

      Applicant. But it is made clear that without producing valid

      passports and visas, Applicant shall not be released on bail.

  (c) Upon producing such valid passports and visas, Applicant

      shall place copies thereof before Trial Court.

  (d) The Applicant shall register himself on the basis of such valid

      passports and visas, with Foreigners Regional Registration

      Office (FRRO) at Goa, within two weeks of his release.

  (e) The Applicant shall use sim cards for mobile phones that are

      obtained on the basis of such valid passports issued in his
                                    (9)                     crma-37-2026.odt



          favour and he shall give details of such contact numbers

          before Trial Court at earliest.

   (f) The Applicant shall inform place of his residence to Trial

          Court with valid proof thereof and report any changes in same

          immediately with appropriate proof each time before Trial

          Court. If applicant fails to provide such details, he shall be

          kept in detention centre(s) established by respondent State.

   (g) The Applicant shall file affidavit before Trial Court within two

          weeks of his release on bail, stating source of his funds and

          source of his income in this country, giving details of legal

          channels including Bank accounts through which he would be

          operating his finances.

   (h) The Applicant shall report to Calangute Police Station every

          Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till completion

          of trial.

   (i) The Applicant shall not indulge in any activity that would

          amount to tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

   (j) The Applicant shall remain present before Trial Court on each

          and every date of proceeding and he shall co-operate with

          such proceedings.


                                            (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                     JUDGE
Devendra/September-2026