The court ruled that in drug trafficking cases involving intermediate quantities, lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the contraband can justify granting bail.

JUDGMENT :

W. DIENGDOH, J.

1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail in favour of Miss Neimercy Singsit, who was arrested on 04.05.2023 in connection with Nongpoh P.S. Case No. 51 (05) 2023 under Section 21(b)/29 NDPS Act.

2. The FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Nongpoh Police Station on 03.05.2023. The informant is the I/C Byrnihat Police Outpost, Ri-Bhoi District. From the body of the FIR, what could be seen is that the informant has stated that on 02.05.2023, on receipt of telephonic information regarding a person named Shri. Promod Chettri who is travelling from Guwahati to Shillong and who is suspected to be carrying some drugs consignment on the vehicle approaching the road opposite Byrnihat Police Outpost, it was accordingly stopped for checking after all formalities as required under the NDPS Act, was complied with. It is further stated that 4(four) soap boxes containing substances suspected to be heroin were seized from the said vehicle, and on being tested, the same was confirmed to be heroin. Accordingly, the driver of the vehicle Shri. Promod Chettri was arrested and Nongpoh P.S. Case No. 51 (05) 2023 under Section 21(b)/29 NDPS Act was registered.

3. In course of interrogation of the arrested accused person, it was revealed by him that the said contraband substances were handed over to him by Miss Neimercy Singsit, who is staying somewhere near the Airport at Guwahati. Accordingly, on the basis of such information, Miss Neimercy Singsit was arrested in connection with the case.

4. In due course, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed the charge sheet and had observed that the accused persons, Shri Promod Chettri and Miss Neimercy Singsit have admitted to be involved in the crime and accordingly, the Investigating Officer has further observed that a prima facie case under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act is found well established against the accused person Shri. Promod Chettri and a case under Section 29 of the NDPS Act is found well established against the accused person Miss Neimercy Singsit and they are sent before the competent court to stand trial.

5. Ms. K. Chisa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has now approach this Court with a prayer for grant of bail on behalf of the accused person Miss Neimercy Singsit. She also submits that there is no evidence against this accused person, inasmuch as, the alleged drugs were not seized from her possession and she was also not present in the vehicle at the time of the said seizure not being conscious or even constructive possession of the alleged contraband drugs. The accused person Miss Neimercy Singsit could not have been remanded to custody on the allegation that she was arrested only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused Shri Promod Chettri, further submits the learned counsel. It is also submitted that this ought to be the basis for the arrested or eventually conviction of the accused person in question since the confession or accusation by the co-accused cannot implicate the accused person herein.

6. Another limb of argument urged by the learned counsel is that the accused is a young girl of about 20 years or so and she is already in custody for more than 6(six) months. Therefore, having no criminal antecedents, she may be allowed to be enlarged on bail with any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose, to which she will abide by.

7. The fact that the alleged seized contraband is of an intermediate quantity as per the provision of Section 21 of the NDPS Act, therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the said Act is not applicable and as such, this Court may be pleased to allow the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail. The learned counsel has also refuted the allegations made by the prosecution that the complicity of the accused in the case is mostly based on the seizure of the mobile phone, wherein the call details report (CDR) would show the