IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. DIENGDOH, J.
Smti. Lakyntiewrisha Nongrum – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Anr. – Respondents
BA. No. 2 of 2024 with BA. No. 3 of 2024, BA. No. 4 of 2024, BA. No. 5 of 2024
Decided on : 16-02-2024
Bail - Narcotic Drugs - NDPS Act Sections 21(b), 29, 54 - The court discussed the presumption of possession under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for established recovery from the accused to invoke such presumption, influencing the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
Four individuals were arrested after contraband heroin was found in a taxi they were traveling in. The police conducted a search based on reliable information, leading to the seizure of 9.64 grams of heroin from the vehicle's dashboard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not conclusively establish possession of the contraband by the accused, and the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act could not be applied without clear recovery from the accused.
Issues: Whether the accused persons were in possession of the seized contraband and whether the quantity of the drug constituted a small or commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of possession under Section 54 requires clear evidence of recovery from the accused, and the determination of drug quantity must consider the actual content of the narcotic.
Result: The bail applications were allowed with specific conditions imposed.
ORDER :
1. These batch of bail applications involving similar and identical facts and questions are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that an FIR dated 02.05.2023 was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Nongpoh Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District, wherein the informant, who is a police official of the Byrnihat Outpost, Ri-Bhoi District has stated that on 01.05.2023, at about 7:30 pm, on receipt of reliable information, a Naka checking was conducted and accordingly, one vehicle (Local Taxi) bearing registration No. ML 10 C 4908 was intercepted at Umling check gate.
3. On a search and seizure being made, the alleged contraband substance was found from the dashboard of the said Local Taxi, wherein four persons who are said to be passengers of the Local Taxi are suspected to be in possession of the contraband substance which substance on being tested, would reveal that it contain heroin. The weight of the suspected drug is 9.64 grams. Accordingly, on investigation being launched, the said four passengers were arrested.
4. In due course, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer, who has found that a prima facie case is well founded to proceed against the said accused persons under the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly Section 21(b)/29.
5. The case is now at the stage of evidence where one witness, out of the total nine witnesses cited, has been examined.
6. The learned counsel has submitted that the seizure of the alleged drugs was found from the dashboard of the Local Taxi, and as such, it cannot be presumed that it was found from the possession of the accused persons.
7. Reference to the applicability of Section 54 of the NDPS Act was made with the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh alias Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh being cited in this regard, the same reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1117, wherein at para 34 of the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“34. It is true that Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband. But to raise the presumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused. The moment a doubt is cast upon the most fundamental aspect, namely the search and seizure, the appellant, in our considered opinion will also be entitled to the same benefit as given by the Special Court to the co-accused.”
8. The next point of contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged seized contraband drugs, though indicated as intermediate quantity, is actually not so, but in fact, it should be noted as small quantity. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has led this Court to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory examination of the seized contraband drugs, wherein out of a sample of 5.6664 grams, when tested, it gave a positive test for the presence of diacetylmorphine, the percentage of which comes to 17.5764%. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that 17.5764% of the 9.64 grams seized, would reveal that the actual quantity of heroin seized would be 1.69 grams.
9. Considering the fact that the accused persons in question are young persons in the age group of 20 to 30 years, some of them are 26 and some of them are 22, and also the fact that they have been in custody for about 9(nine) months or so, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow these applications and to grant the prayer for enlargement of bail with any conditions as deemed fit and proper to be imposed by this Court.
10. Per Contra, Mrs. T. Yangi. B, learned AAG appearing for the State respondents, has submitted that the fact that the contraband substance i.e. heroin was seized from the Local Taxi, in which the accused persons were travelling and also fou
E. Micheal Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Hira Singh and another v. Union of India and another reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272
AI
The presumption of possession under Section 54 of the NDPS Act requires established recovery from the accused, and the actual content of narcotics is crucial in determining quantity classifications.
Point of Law : Merely because the quantity of contraband recovered is less than commercial quantity may not by itself be sufficient to grant bail.
Point of law: whether there was compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act or not, could be ascertained at the time of trial.
A prima facie case was established against the accused for possession of contraband, and ignorance of its contents did not warrant bail under the NDPS Act.
The limitations prescribed for the grant of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act require substantially probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
The court held that the substantial quantity of drugs recovered invoked the strict provisions of the NDPS Act, justifying the denial of bail.
Narcotic substances - Bail dismissed - Section 37 of Act no accused can be released on bail when application is opposed by Public Prosecutor unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground....
The court established that possession of narcotics must be conscious, and bail may be granted based on the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence.
The judgment established that the gravity of the offence, the impact of the illicit drug trade, and the concept of conscious possession are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility under the N....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.