EMMANUAL EBUKAversusSTATE OF U.P.

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
   CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19630 of 2025

Emmanual Ebuka
                                                  .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus

State of U.P.
                                                     .....Opposite
                                                           Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Mohd. Shahibe Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A., Kuldeep Kumar

Court No. - 69
                 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Sri Shubham Prakash Gupta, learned Advocate, holding the
brief, appeared for the applicant hands up the rejoinder
affidavit. The same is taken on record.

1A. Heard Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Kuldeep Kumar, learned Advocate, Central Government
Standing Counsel.

2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused-
applicant Emmanual Ebuka to enlarge him on bail in Case
Crime No. 45 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/27/27A/29/37
NDPS Act and 14 Foreigners Act, P.S.- Ecotech First, District-
Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant
that it is the allegation in the F.I.R. dated 18.04.2024 lodged by
the police that the accused-applicant and other co-accused have
been arrested by the police with 26 kg 670 gm crystal and
MDMA Methamphetamine drugs. The accused-applicant is a
foreign national and has been falsely implicated in this case.
There is no independent witness of arrest and recovery. The
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has not been taken care
of, while carrying out arrest and recovery. The charge sheet is
submitted. The trial is still at the nascent stage. The applicant
                                                   BAIL No. 19630 of 2025
                          2


has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since
18.04.2024 and hence, the applicant seeks to be released on
bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail of
the applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi) [(2023) 18 SCC 166] the Apex Court observed and
held that the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act would not
come in the way, when the Court deals with the liberty of a
person, as more the rigour, quicker ought to be the
adjudication.

7. This Court in order dated 12.09.2025 called for the status of
the trial. The report of the trial Judge dated 30.09.2025 shows
that till the date of report, only one witness was examined, who
is complainant and despite two dates of his examination-in-
chief, the material was not brought before the court, which led
to the deferment of recording of first prosecution witness.
Since 26.08.2025, the prosecution witness did not turn up.
Nothing latest brought on record by either side.

8. Considered that the arrest and recovery has been made in the
absence of independent witness and the mandatory provisions
of the NDPS Act is a matter of trial, which is still at the nascent
stage.

9. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail
application is allowed.

10. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned in view of
observation made by the Supreme Court in its dictums of
Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC
                                                                                        BAIL No. 19630 of 2025
                                                                 3


                                        674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re
                                        [(2024)10SCC 685].

                                        11. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process
                                        for fair and speedy disposal.

                                        12. As the accused-applicant is a foreign national and resident
                                        of Lagos Nigeria, as such the directions, as is provided in the
                                        case of Frank Vitrus Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau reported
                                        in (2025) 3 SCC 1 & (2024) 8 SCC 415, are to be followed by
                                        the court concerned, while releasing the accused.

                                                                                   (Avnish Saxena,J.)

                                        September 29, 2026
                                        Shivangi




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad