Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./2552/2026 of CHRISTOPHER CHINONYE @ PEDRO Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 7 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010288552026 + BAIL APPLN. 2552/2026 CHRISTOPHER CHINONYE @ PEDRO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, Adv. (through VC) versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP SI Pardeep Kumar, Crime Branch CORAM:
$~5
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010288552026
+
BAIL APPLN. 2552/2026
CHRISTOPHER CHINONYE @ PEDRO
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, Adv.
(through VC)
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Manoj Pant, APP
SI Pardeep Kumar, Crime Branch
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 07.09.2026
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 144/2025 dated 13.06.2025, registered at P.S. Crime Branch under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
3. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the applicant under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
4. Briefly stated, the aforesaid FIR was registered on 13.06.2025 pursuant to secret information received regarding a parcel lying at DHL Courier
Services, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, from which 895 grams of MDMA was allegedly recovered. During investigation, on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2025, the applicant, a Nigerian national, was allegedly seen coming out of Building No. U-37/26, Nathupura Village, Gurugram and, upon noticing the police party, is stated to have thrown a white polythene packet in the common corridor after which he attempted to flee. Though no contraband was recovered from his personal search, the said packet was allegedly found to contain 108 grams of cocaine. A subsequent search of the premises resulted in the recovery of a Nigerian passport, a notebook and cash amounting to ₹37,600/-, though no narcotic substance was recovered therefrom. The applicant was arrested on 21.09.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then.
5. The Nominal Roll of the applicant has been handed over in Court by the learned APP for the State. Let the same be taken on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that the common corridor from where the recovery was made is accessible to several persons; therefore, the said recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that, though as per the prosecution case the petitioner is alleged to be a member of a syndicate, the mobile phone recovered from him does not disclose any material connecting him with the other co-accused persons or indicating that he is a member of the said syndicate. It is further submitted that there are no call records linking the petitioner with the other co-accused persons.
7. He further submits that there is no independent witness to the recovery, nor has any CCTV footage been recovered by the Investigating Officer (IO), and that there are procedural lapses in the investigation.
8. He further submits that the place from where the recovery was effected and the place from where the petitioner was arrested are different. It is also submitted that no presumption can be drawn from the recovery of the notebook that the figures mentioned therein pertain to the sale of narcotic drugs.
9. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner is a Level-3 member of the syndicate and a State-level peddler. It is submitted that, upon seeing the police party, the petitioner threw a packet containing drugs in the corridor, which was subsequently found to contain 108 grams of cocaine, being a commercial quantity. He further submits that the allegations are heinous in nature and that, being a part of the drug syndicate, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the material placed on record.
11. Even though the recovery was not effected from the person of the petitioner, as per the prosecution case, upon seeing the police party, the petitioner threw a packet in the common corridor, which was subsequently found to contain 108 grams of cocaine, being a commercial quantity.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, no ground for bail is made out.
13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/prg/PG