Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh has declined a plea for bail in a case under the NDPS Act involving the seizure of marijuana, citing the seriousness of the charges and the stage of trial. The court refused to rely solely on alleged procedural lapses during sampling and stated that, despite prolonged incarceration, the ongoing trial did not justify bail. The prayer for bail was therefore dismissed, and the court requested the trial court to ensure expeditious conclusion of proceedings.

The case pertains to an inci dent dated 31.07.2023, in which two individuals, including the accused person who is the brother of the petitioner, were intercepted by police officers from the Anti-Narcotic Task Force (ANTF) while traveling from Tripura towards Shillong. The interception occurred around 9:30 PM at Umtyra, located along National Highway 6. Following the interception, a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 23J-0171 was searched, and 37 packets suspected to contain contraband substances were recovered.

Also Read: Supreme Court Refers Trademark Dispute To Arbitration | Existence Of Arbitration Clause Is Sufficient To Oust Civil Jurisdiction And Must Be Enforced

Subsequently, on 01.08.2023, Shri J. Myrom (MPS), Dy. SP HQ, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, lodged an FIR leading to the registration of Khliehriat P.S. Case No. 55(08)2023 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.

During investigation, the suspected contraband substance was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Jaintia Hills District on 04.08.2023. Samples were drawn from packets marked A30 and A37, which tested positive for marijuana. Based on the sampling and other materials, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet on 21.12.2023, concluding a prima facie case against the accused for offences under Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act, indicating seizure of commercial quantity.

The petitioner challenged the sampling process, arguing that only 2 of 37 packets were sampled, which allegedly contravened Section 52A of the NDPS Act and related Rules of 2022. The petitioner contended that the total weight of the seized samples was 2.073 kg out of a total of 47.157 kg, and therefore the court could not presume that the entire seized quantity constituted commercial quantity.

Supporting his argument, the petitioner cited two precedents:

In Wali Hasan v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18303/2020, the Allahabad High Court held that sampling not done in accordance with mandatory standing orders weakens the prosecution’s case under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

In Rajan Singh v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16323/2023, the Rajasthan High Court observed that failure to draw samples from each pouch undermined certainty regarding the commercial quantity of contraband.

The petitioner also submitted that the accused had been in custody for nearly two years, without any criminal antecedents, and had family responsibilities, including a wife and a minor child.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, contending that the accused was in conscious possession of contraband, as reflected in his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution further submitted that the accused and his co-accused used a vehicle with a fake registration number. The vehicle was originally registered in Bihar as BR01BS 2941 and belonged to one Shri Vikash Kumar. The accused was found to have travelled in it after it was sold to another party.

As per the prosecution, charge sheet was filed on 21.12.2023 and charges framed on 09.04.2024. Three out of six witnesses had already been examined, indicating that the trial was progressing without delay.

The court recorded: "On the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regard the defective process carried out in course of taking samples of the seized contraband substance, which initially were said to weigh about 47.157 Kg, samples of which were taken from only 2 packets, the said 2 packets weighing about 2.073 Kg, therefore, on this ground alone, the prosecution may not be able to sustain its case at the trial, and accordingly, the accused person is entitled to be granted bail."

However, the court added: "This Court would say that the case is still under trial with three witnesses yet to be examined, therefore, at this point of time, it may not be safe to come to any conclusion as to the strength or weakness of the prosecution case, vis-à-vis, the strength or weakness of the case of the defence including the accused person in question."

Further, the bench recorded: "Even, if the rigors of Section 37 of the Act is not to be taken into account in this particular case, yet bail is still within the discretionary realm of the court."

The court held that "though, the authorities cited by the petitioner are relevant to the subject matter, however, the same cannot be made the basis for grant of bail."

Regarding prolonged custody, the court noted: "Taking into consideration the fact that the trial has proceeded in its normal course, no delay could be attributed to the Trial Court. As such, on this ground too, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner."

With respect to antecedents, the court observed: "It may be true that he has no criminal record so far, but that in itself, would not qualify him to be enlarged on bail."

Also Read: Manipur High Court Modifies Interim Orders | Permits Road Construction While Protecting Petitioners' Possession Rights

Concerning flight risk, the court noted: "Also not being a resident of this State as apparently from the records, it is presumed that he is a resident of the State of Tripura, therefore, the fact that he may be a flight risk, cannot be ruled out."

The High Court directed: "This Court is not inclined to allow the prayer made in this petition at this point of time. The same is accordingly rejected."

Additionally, it instructed: "Before parting, the Trial Court is requested to ensure that the trial is completed as expeditiously as possible."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. R. War, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. H. Kharmih, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Government Advocate

Case Title: Shri Rabi Debbarma v. State of Meghalaya

Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:454

Case Number: BA. No. 24 of 2025

Bench: Justice W. Diengdoh

[Read/Download order]