Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant decision delivered by the Meghalaya High Court, bail has been denied to an accused implicated in a case involving the transit of illegal narcotic substances, on the ground that under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, “negation of bail is the rule and its grant is the exception.”

The case, presided over by Justice W. Diengdoh, stems from an incident dated June 19, 2023 when police, acting on confidential information regarding the transit of illegal narcotics, intercepted a Tata Winger vehicle at a checkpoint near BMS Fuel Station, Nongsning Village NH-6. Upon conducting a search of the vehicle and its occupants, 200 soap cases containing yellowish-orange powder, later identified as heroin, were discovered concealed in various compartments. Subsequently, Imliakum Longkumer and M. Tuanbiaklian Guite were arrested, and a police case under Section 21(C)/29 NDPS Act was registered. The investigation also revealed the involvement of one Jehangir Alom, who was also directed to stand trial along with other co-accused.

The bail petition was presented before the court by the elder sister of one of the accused, M. Tuanbiaklian Guite. The petitioner sought bail for Guite, contending that he was not involved in the alleged trafficking of contraband drugs. It was argued that Guite was acquainted with the co-accused, Longkumer. However, there is no prima facie evidence linking him to the alleged trafficking of contraband drugs. It was asserted that Guite, unaware of any illegal activity, was merely a passenger in the vehicle en route to Guwahati to join his family. It was further emphasised that the call detail record (CDR) as evidence was insufficient, highlighting the need for substantive evidence beyond CDR to establish guilt.

Additionally, the petitioners argued that the accused person in question suffers from Grade-IV Haemorrhoids and requires surgery. However, this argument was not pursued, as records indicate that the trial court had already directed relevant authorities to ensure proper treatment for the accused.

Furthermore, it was submitted that the accused person serves as the sole breadwinner for his family, which includes four minor children. Thus, the petitioners contended that the accused person should be granted bail with any conditions deemed appropriate by the court.

Conversely, the state (respondents) opposed the bail application, arguing that Guite was complicit in the offence due to his association with the co-accused and the substantial quantity of drugs found in the vehicle. The prosecution emphasised the seriousness of the offence, especially considering the commercial quantity of narcotics involved, being a large quantity of about 2.679 kg of heroin.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the accused person and the co-accused were the only individuals present in the vehicle at the time of the seizure and that there was no doubt regarding their conscious possession of the contraband drugs.

The court held that the petitioner had relied solely on the aspect of the call detail record (CDR) not attributing guilt or involvement to the accused person in question. However, the court emphasised that records indicated the accused's familiarity with the co-accused, the driver of the vehicle, and his awareness of the concealed contraband drugs in the vehicle. Consequently, it said “the onus to prove his innocence lies with him (accused).”

The court further stated that it would not overly prioritise the issue of the CDR as a basis for proving the accused's innocence, emphasising that this matter would be eventually tested.

Referring to a similar case, the court highlighted observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Haresh Rawal v. Narcotics Control Bureau’ (2021) , which resembled the facts and circumstances of the present case. These observations outlined crucial circumstances for evaluating bail applications under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court further noted “It need not be reminded that one of the factors to be taken into account by the court while considering the question of grant of bail is that the court must be reasonably convince that the accused is not guilty of the offences he is charged with and that if released on bail he shall not commit the same offence.”

The court expressed “this Court is not convinced that the accused person in question is not guilty of the offence charged against him, his association with the co-accused would also lead this Court to believe that if enlarged on bail, there is no guarantee that he will not commit the same offence.”

Consequently, the court found the bail petition devoid of merit and dismissed it accordingly.

 

Cause Title: Niangkhanngai Guite v State of Meghalaya [BA No. 9 of 2024]