Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MEGH) 43
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, J
Smti. Lily Sitlhou – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
BA. No. 55 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. K. Chisa
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Thabah, GA, Mr. R. Gurung, GA
A lack of direct evidence linking an accused to drug trafficking permits bail under the NDPS Act, especially when involving an intermediate quantity.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21(b) and 29 - Application for bail by accused who was not in possession of contraband at the time of arrest - Court considers absence of direct evidence linking accused to the crime, implications of intermediate quantity of drugs, and need for personal bond. (Paras 10, 11, 13)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant of bail considered - The absence of criminal antecedents and requirement for personal bond and compliance with conditions imposed by the court. (Paras 13)
Facts of the case:
The accused, arrested in connection with a drug trafficking case involving intermediate quantity substances, was not present at the seizure; allegations based primarily on statements from co-accused.
Findings of Court:
The accused's continued detention is not warranted given no direct evidence linking her to the crime and the nature of the seized drugs.
Issues: Whether the accused’s bail can be granted given the alleged involvement and charges under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court holds that without evidence linking the accused to the contraband, and considering the interim nature of charges, bail is justified.
Result: The application for bail is granted with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail due to lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding insufficient evidence for remand. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. state's position on established involvement through cdr. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. observations on previous cases inform current ruling. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court grants bail with specific conditions. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
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
