Dismissed

Emmanuel Togo v. Air Intelligence Unit and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2009APPA/380/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application for bail filed by a foreign national convicted under NDPS Act for drug trafficking. The court held that despite significant sentence completion, bail cannot be granted given the specific circumstances, the proceeding's readiness for final hearing, and the risk of the foreign accused potentially returning to his country and becoming unavailable.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; accused remains in jail.

Emmanuel Togo Vs Air Intelligence Unit and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.380 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.154 OF 2007

¶3

Emmanuel Togo Malienne National V/s.

¶4

Air Intelligence Unit & Anr.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Atul Sarpande for the Applicant. Mr.H.V.Mehta for Respondent No.1. A.R.Shinde, A.P.P.for the State.

¶8

CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J.

¶9

DATED : APRIL 27^th , 2009.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard rival submissions for some time.

¶12

It is an application for bail filed by sole accused for releasing him, during the pendency of appeal. Said appeal is already admitted, for the offences punishable under section 67 of NDPS Act.

¶13

¶14

The applicant accused was arrested when he was found in possession of 1991 grams of heroine from the bottles of liquid detergent soap at Ethiopian and Kenyan Airways by the officers of Air Intelligence Unit at Sahar Airport.

¶15

The applicant accused got tried for the offence punishable under section 8 (c) read with section 21 and 28 read with 23 of NDPS Act and convicted on 7^th November, 2006 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months . Since arrest i.e. on 30^th June, 2002 till today the applicant is in jail and almost 7 years of imprisonment out of 10 years. On this aspect the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the following authorities :

¶16

“(2006) 1 SCC (Cri.)279

¶17

Mansingh V/s.Union of India

¶18

(2007) 1 SCC (Cri.)370 Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja

¶19

Criminal application NO.1380 of 2006 Judgment of Justice A.S.Oka of Bombay High Court, dated 14/3/2008 Mirza Qumer Hyder V/s.A.K.Thakker & Anr.

¶20

Criminal application NO.1381 of 2006 Judgment of Justice A.S.Oka of Bombay High Court, dated 14/3/2008 Bhanudas More V/s.A.K.Thakker & Anr.”

¶21

¶22

It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Sarpande for the Applicant that only on this count of undergoing major parts of sentence and possibility of not taking up the matter for final hearing, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶23

Counter to the above, learned A.P.P. for the A.I.U. submitted that the ratio in the above authorities may not be applicable in the instant matter considering the specific circumstances that the applicant is a foreign national, arrested and convicted, there is every possibility that he may return to his country and may not be available during hearing of the appeal. It appears that as the matter is ready for final hearing, it will not be proper to release the applicant on bail, considering the possibility of non availability of the applicant during hearing of the appeal.

¶24

In order to consider the conviction for the offence punishable under NDPS Act in the opinion of this Court, the Criminal appeal can be expeditiously tried, however it cannot be a case of releasing of the accused on bail. Moreover, it may be noticed in the cited authorities of the Apex Court that, the accused came to be released on temporary bail during the pendency of such appeals. All the same, it is not the case in which only on the ground of undergoing 7 years imprisonment and conviction of 10 years, the

¶25

¶26

applicant can be released on bail.

¶27

In view of the above, there is nothing to grant bail to applicant original accused. Hence, application for bail is rejected.

¶28

(A.R. JOSHI, J.)

¶29

Emmanuel Togo v. Air Intelligence Unit and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emmanuel Togo v. Air Intelligence Unit and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishamrs.Anita Rajen Vs Mrs.Anita Rajendrakumar and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Arvindkumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr.

Ashwini Kumar Devapriya (Huf) Vs P.S.Srinivasan and Anr.

Shaikh Saiful Ali Shaikh Mujjafar Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anis Sagir Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Shyam Bhaskar Badme Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.