Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. DIENGDOH
Manoranjan Modak S/o Late Mahendra Modak – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of bail petitions and related arrests (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments made by petitioners and state (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and law regarding bail (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final decision on bail petitions (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
W. DIENGDOH, J.
1. These two petitions have been filed with a prayer for grant of bail on behalf of the accused persons namely, Shri. Tutan Sarkar and Shri. Sujit Sarkar who are involved in a case registered as Khliehriat P.S. Case No. 47(06)2023 under Section 279 /307/353/427 IPC read with Section 20 (b)(ii)(c)/29 NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Ms. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the accused persons in question were occupants of a vehicle bearing Registration No. TR 01BW 0231 which was driven by the accused person, Tutan Sarkar. It is also submitted that on 19.06.2023 one vehicle bearing Registration No. TR 01BT 0265 driven by one Joyel Das which was intercepted during Naka checking at Nongsnging near BMS Fuel Station, East Jaintia Hills District wherein the police personnel on conducting a search of the vehicle had discovered a large quantity of alleged contraband substance. Accordingly, t
Bail applications under Section 37 of the NDPS Act require a presumption of innocence, which was not established in this case, leading to the denial of bail.
The NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs, requiring substantial evidence to prove the accused's innocence.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
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 stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the evidence connecting the petitioner to his co-accused influenced the court's decision in dismissing the petition for regular bail.
The court confirmed that under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and ....
The court emphasized that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act for commercial quantity offences unless conditions for non-guilt and lack of re-offending are satisfied, which were not met by the ....
The court emphasized that the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of contraband are critical in bail considerations, and procedural violations do not automatically warrant bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
