Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Meghalaya, while adjudicating upon a batch of bail applications connected to the possession and transportation of heroin, ruled that when determining whether a seized quantity of a drug constitutes a 'small quantity' or 'commercial quantity,' both the actual narcotic content and the weight of any neutral substances mixed with it must be considered together.

The observation came ancillary to the court deciding to grant bail to the accused, citing the duration of their custody, the progress of the trial, and the principle that bail ensures the accused's presence at trial rather than serving as a punitive measure.

The case involved four individuals arrested following the seizure of 9.64 grams of suspected heroin. An FIR filed on May 2, 2023, reported the interception of a local taxi at the Umling checkpoint on May 1, 2023, based on tip-offs. The four passengers aboard were charged under Sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically under Section 21(b)/29 following an investigation.

The counsel representing the accused individuals, Adv R Gurung, argued that the heroin found in the dashboard of the taxi could not be presumed to belong to the accused passengers. This argument aimed to challenge the presumption of possession under the law, suggesting that mere presence in the vehicle does not equate to possession of the contraband found within it.

The defence further made a reference to the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh alias Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022), wherein the Supreme Court highlighted that for the presumption of possession under Section 54 of the NDPS Act to apply, it must first be unequivocally established that the contraband was recovered from the accused. The ruling underscores that if there's doubt about the fundamental aspect of search and seizure, such as in scenarios where the exact possession of the contraband is questionable, the accused should receive the benefit of the doubt, similar to any co-accused who had been acquitted under similar circumstances. This precedent supports the argument that mere presence near contraband does not automatically translate to possession or guilt under the NDPS Act.

The defence also hinged on the forensic analysis which determined that the purity of the diacetylmorphine (heroin) in the seized substance was 17.5764%. By applying this purity percentage to the total weight of the seized substance (9.64 grams), the defence calculated that the actual heroin content was only 1.69 grams. This calculation was pivotal in arguing for the reclassification of the seized quantity from 'intermediate' to 'small' under the NDPS Act, which could significantly affect the legal implications and potential penalties faced by the accused.

On the other hand, AAG T. Yangi B appearing for the state highlighted the accused's own admissions during investigations of drug consumption and involvement in drug peddling. Pointing to the risk they could pose to society by potentially resuming these activities if released on bail, the State argued against the bail applications, suggesting they lacked merit and posed a societal threat.

The court, led by Justice W. Diengdoh, deliberated on legal precedents and the specifics of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It acknowledged the submissions from both sides but stated that it was premature to delve into factual and evidentiary matters as the trial was ongoing. It highlighted that the Investigating Officer had gathered sufficient evidence for the accused to stand trial. Regarding the presumption issue, the Court deemed it too early to reach any conclusions, emphasising the need for the trial to proceed to its conclusion.

Court addressed the argument regarding the calculation of drug quantity based on the precedent set in the case of E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2008) 5 SCC 161.

However, it noted that this interpretation was superseded by the Supreme Court's judgment in Hira Singh and another v. Union of India and another (2020) 20 SCC 272, which held that, “In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances.”

The latter judgment clarified that when determining whether a seized quantity of a drug constitutes a 'small quantity' or 'commercial quantity,' both the actual narcotic content and the weight of any neutral substances mixed with it must be considered together, countering the earlier ruling that only the weight of the narcotic content should be considered.

Considering the prolonged custody of the accused and the slow pace of the trial, with only one of nine witnesses examined, the court recognised the unlikely conclusion of the trial in the near term.

The court also took into consideration the Supreme Court's observation in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI  (2012) 1 SCC 40,  that “The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon”.

Court decided to grant bail to the accused under specific conditions so as not to abscond or tamper with evidence, leave Meghalaya without court permission, fail to appear in court, or disrupt the trial process.

Case Title: Smti. Lakyntiewrisha Nongrum Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr