Interim Order 35

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
IA No. 5/2026 in SC No. 276/2021
NCB v. Kulwa Yohana Martine
11.02.2026
File is taken up today on an application made by the accused
Kulwa Yohana Martine u/s 483 (1) of BNSS, 2023/Section 439
(1) (b) of Cr.P.C for modification in the bail order dated
06.10.2025 and in the modified order dated 27.10.2025.
Present: Sh. Raj Mohan Chand, Ld. SPP for NCB.
Sh. Anup Kumar Gupta, Ld. counsel for
applicant/accused.
1. It is stated in the application that the regular bail was
granted to the applicant on 06.10.2025. The bail conditions were
modified vide order dated 27.10.2025. Another application of the
accused filed U/s 484 (2) of BNSS seeking waiver of condition
of furnishing the surety and enlarging him on personal bond has
been dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2025. That in compliance
of the bail order dated 06.10.2025, the accused had applied for
extension of visa/grant of ex-misc.visa through Jail
Superintendent to the Bureau of Immigration at FRRO, which
has been granted (copy filed). That accused has deposited sum of
Rs.50,000/- in terms of order dated 27.10.2025 and was released
from jail on 27.01.2026. He now seeks removal of the condition
-- 1 of 6 --
of depositing Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from the release and
permission to furnish surety of Rs.25,000/- only in place of
Rs.50,000/-. He also seeks two weeks further time for complying
with the said directions.
2. It is further submitted that no similar application is either
filed or is pending before this Court or before Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel
has submitted that no such application has also been filed before
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
3. Accused has placed reliance on the following judgments in
support of the application:
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in re; “In
Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail” 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 483;
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in re;
“Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors”,
MANU/SC/0575/2024;
(iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in re;
“Francis Ogadinma Iroegbu v. State (NCT of
Delhi)”, Bail Application No. 2806/2024.
4. Ld. SPP for the NCB has opposed the application
submitting that when the previous application for modification of
-- 2 of 6 --
bail directions has been decided on 27.10.2025 and subsequent
such application has been dismissed on 28.11.2025, application
under consideration cannot be allowed. It is further submitted
that accused is a foreign national and is involved in commission
of a serious offence as 03 Kg of heroin was recovered from his
possession and if conditions are further relexed, there is a
likelihood of the accused evading the process of law.
5. I have heard the respective arguments and have perused the
record.
6. Section 483 (1) (b) of the BNSS empowers a Court of
Session to set aside or modify any condition imposed by a
Magistrate when releasing any person on bail.
7. Section 484 of BNSS specifically deals with amount of
bond and reduction thereof.
8. In the instant case, Ld. Predecessor, while dealing with the
prayer of the accused for waiver of condition of furnishing the
surety and enlarging him on personal bond, vide his order dated
28.11.2025 has observed that the discretion has already been
exercised in favor of the accused vide order dated 27.10.2025,
whereby his request for reduction of surety amount and deposit
of cash in lieu of surety was considered. The Ld. Predecessor had
-- 3 of 6 --
observed that the applicant is a foreign national, who arrived on
student visa in India. The recovery of large quantity (03 Kg of
heroin) of contraband from his luggage was also noted. It was
categorically observed that no further ground is made out to
reduce the personal bond and surety bond amount any further.
9. Effectively, the accused is seeking review of the above-
mentioned order dated 28.11.2025, which is not permissible in
law. The reliance on the case law In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant
of Bail is not applicable to the present case as the Court had
already considered and adjudicated upon the request of the
accused for relaxing the conditions of furnishing bail bond and
surety bond upon release vide the above-mentioned order dated
27.10.2025.
10. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case titled ‘Prantik Kumar & Anr. v.
State of Jharkhand & Ors’, in SLP (Crl) Diary No. 4297/2026,
decided on 03.02.2026. In humble opinion of this Court the
reliance is misplaced as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the said case was not dealing with deposit of sum of money in
lieu of bond but the issue before the Hon’ble Court was
regarding the amounts involved in the transactions alleged. The
Ld. Counsel has also relied on the decision Frank Vitus (Supra),
however, the said decision would reveal that in the said case the
-- 4 of 6 --
issue of personal bond and surety bond amount was not the
subject matter of adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India. The Hon’ble Court dealt with the issue of condition of
dropping pin on Google Map and of furnishing certificate of
Embassy which subsequently were deleted vide the order dated
08.07.2024.
11. The Ld. Counsel has further placed reliance on the case
law Francis Ogadinma Iroegbu (Supra), however, the copy of
said case law is not furnished along-with the application nor the
same has been argued before the Court. The Court has attempted
to find the relevant decision on the Internet but no such decision
relevant to the present case could be searched.
12. The Ld. Counsel has further relied upon the decision of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case ‘Moussa Zie v. State of
NCT of Delhi’, in Crl.M.A. 20185/2024 decided on 12.07.2024.
Perusal of the said decision would reveal that the Hon’ble Court
in the said case was pleased to reduce the amount of personal
bond from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The Hon’ble Court was
further pleased to reduce the condition of furnishing two sureties
of 1,00,000/- to cash surety of Rs. 25,000/-. The facts of the case
under consideration are entirely different and therefore, this
decision is also not of assistance to the applicant.
-- 5 of 6 --
13. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in prayer of
the accused made in the instant application to dispense with the
condition of depositing Rs.50,000/- in cash or FDR as has been
ordered on 27.10.2025. The Court also does not find any merit in
the prayer to modify the condition of furnishing surety in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. However, considering the
pendency of this application and taking a humane approach, the
accused is granted two more weeks from today to comply with
the said conditions and till then, the personal bond furnished by
him on 03.12.2025 is extended and accepted.
14. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of
this order be given dasti.
15. The affidavit furnished by the accused today regarding his
place of residence accompanied with copy of rent agreement and
his financial status is taken on record.
16. Matter be listed on 25.02.2026 before this Court for
considering the remaining compliance of the bail directions.
(Jitendra Pratap Singh)
ASJ/Spl. Judge, NDPS/N Delhi
11.02.2026
-- 6 of 6 --