Allahabad High Court
IFEANYI JOHNBOSCOversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the accused, finding that procedural irregularities and the early stage of trial justified release on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by foreign national Ifeanyi Johnbosco, who was arrested in connection with a seizure of 26.67 kg of crystal methamphetamine and MDMA under Sections 8, 21, 27, 27A, 29 and 37 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The applicant contended that the arrest and recovery were conducted without an independent witness, that mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act were not observed, and that he had no prior criminal record. The prosecution could not refute these factual allegations and noted that the trial was at a nascent stage with only one witness examined and further prosecution witnesses absent. Citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the need for speedy adjudication of bail matters even under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court held that the procedural deficiencies warranted bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, directing compliance with directions applicable to foreign nationals.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, when procedural lapses in arrest and recovery are alleged?
- Does the absence of an independent witness to the arrest and recovery affect the bail eligibility of a foreign national under the NDPS and Foreigners Acts?
- Should the nascent stage of trial proceedings and lack of prosecution evidence influence the bail decision?
Legislation cited
- Foreigners Act — s. 14
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 27, 27A, 29, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- foreign national
- procedural lapse
- arrest without independent witness
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 37
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22424 of 2025
Ifeanyi Johnbosco
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav,
Mohd. Shahibe Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kuldeep Kumar
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Sri Mohd. Shahibe Alam, learned counsel for the applicant hands up
the rejoinder affidavit. The same is taken on record.
1A. Heard Sri Alam, 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
Ifeanyi Johnbosco 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 accused-applicant has not been
arrested on the spot. His name has been recovered from the statement of
co-accused. The charge sheet is submitted. The trial is still at the nascent
stage. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since
18.04.2024 and hence, the applicant seeks to be released on bail.
BAIL No. 22424 of 2025
2
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 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 Amechi
Nigeria, as such the directions, as is provided in the case of Frank Vitrus
BAIL No. 22424 of 2025
3
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
Checking your session…