Menace of drug is threatening to life and society

Shri Khupliansum v. State of Meghalaya

Before High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Bail Application 22/2023 dismissed on 31.07.2023

Case relates to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance

?

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W Diengdoh J dismissed the bail application of the accused Smt Kimneikhol Khongsai who has been arrested on 27.10.2022 for offence under NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance).

?While dismissing the bail application the Court observed that we are living in the society where the menace of drugs is threatening enough to destroy lives and society. Indeed, young people are most vulnerable to this threat and many a time, have been seen to fall prey to the same.

?It is incumbent upon the society as well as on the courts to combat this menace in whatever possible way and although, due procedure of law has to be followed, in drug related cases, the Investigating Agencies and Courts has to be given wide latitude in napping or bringing any possible accused to book.

?Contention of the Counsel of the accused

1.???The alleged accused was arrested on being implicated by the co-accused, who were arrested earlier in connection with the said criminal cases.

2.???No contraband or narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances was found from the possession of the accused person and as such, the presumption under Section 54* of the NDPS Act cannot be attached to the accused person.

3.???the alleged mobile handset recovered from the alleged accused does not belong to her and the SIM CARD is also not registered in her name.

4.???The accused is innocent.

5.???The accused person has been in custody for more than 9(nine) months and trial has not yet begun, therefore, for prolongation of the trial, the accused person is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Section 54 NDPS Act* in the trial, it may be presumed that a man has committed an offence in relation to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance if he is found in possession of such contraband and has not satisfactorily reasoned such possession as to how and why he is in possession ..

?Contention of the Additional Advocate General

1.???A look into the antecedent of the accused person in question, would reveal that she was involved in a number of cases under the NDPS Act, implicating her with possession and supply of narcotic drugs. It is also well-founded that the accused person is a supplier of narcotic drugs, which fact was revealed from the 161 Cr P C statement of the co-accused persons, who has named the accused person herein.

2.???Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence

3.???Absence of possession of contraband on the accused person, would not dilute the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act

?Observation of the Court

1.???If an offence under Section 21(c)* has been committed, abetment of the same, would carry the same punishment and also that the rigors of Section 37* of the said NDPS Act shall also apply.

Section 21(c)* where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.]

?Section 37 the Court can grant bail to an accused only on being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of such an offence and that the accused is also unlikely to commit any offence after being released from jail.

2.???The proceedings before the Trial Court is moving in a normal course and there is no unnatural or intentional delay by the court. The contention of the petitioner that the trial has been unnecessarily prolonged, cannot be accepted by this Court.

3.???The Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet in both cases, that is, No. 64 and 65 of 2022 respectively with a finding that a case under Section 29 NDPS Act was found well established against the accused person in question in both cases.

Seema Bhatnagar

?

?