'Prima Facie Involvement': Meghalaya HC Denies Bail To NDPS Accused Even Though Drugs Seized Was 'Intermediate Quantity'
The Meghalaya High Court denied bail to an accused charged under NDPS Act even though the drugs seized from him was that of an intermediate quantity.
The court said that if there is even a prima facie indication of involvement, especially in cases of direct seizure from a person, it is preferable to allow the legal process to unfold through a proper trial.
The First Information Report (FIR) was filed regarding the interception of a local taxi carrying contraband goods. The two passengers were found carrying suspected heroin. The charge sheet was filed establishing a prima facie case under Section 21(b) of the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act against the accused.
A Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh held, “One of the factors to be considered in a case for grant or refusal of bail is for the Court to look into the nature of the case, the seriousness thereof and the severity of the punishment involved, not to lose sight of the fact that the individual rights and interests has to be counter-balance with that of the rights and interests of the society at large.”
Advocate R. Gurung appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate N.D. Chullai appeared for the Respondent.
The petitioner, the wife of one passenger filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C, stating that the accused was the sole breadwinner, and the family is suffering due to his incarceration.
The petitioner argued that the quantity of the seized drugs was intermediate, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable.
The Court acknowledged the seizure of contraband drugs from the accused. It emphasized the need to balance individual rights with the interests of society, particularly in cases involving drug trafficking.
The Court noted that the technicalities of Section 37 NDPS Act may not apply in specific cases. The Court said, “technically, in specific cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act may not be applicable, nevertheless, if there is even a hint of prima facie involvement, particularly in cases where direct seizure is made from a person, it would be better to let the law take its own course, ala a proper trial.”
It referred to a previous case Lily Sitlhou v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. where bail was granted due to differences in circumstances. The Court explained, “In the case of Smti. Lily Sitlhou(supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has considered the case of the accused person therein and has enlarged her on bail, even though the seizure of the alleged contraband drugs was that of an intermediate quantity, but the fact that the said contraband drugs has not been seized from the accused person in that case, the Court has accordingly granted her bail. The case, therefore, has no relevance to the fact situation in this present case.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner has not made a strong case for bail, dismissing the petition without costs.
Cause Title: Rupa Gurung v. State of Meghalaya
Click here to read/download Judgment
