Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 04.03.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 4 March, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:133
Serial Nos. 01 & 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA No. 10 of 2025 with
BA No. 11 of 2025
Date of Decision: 04.03.2025
Shri. Manoranjan Modak, aged about 52 years,
S/o Late Mahendra Modak,
Village-Goglapara,
P.S: Basugaon, Dist.-Chirang, BTR, Assam.
.....Petitioner
- Vs-
The State of Meghalaya, represented by the
Commissioner & Secretary Home Police Department
Government of Meghalaya.
.....Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. M. Rahman, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
COMMON JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
1. These two petitions have been filed with a prayer for grant of
bail on behalf of the accused persons namely, Shri. Tutan Sarkar and Shri.
1
2025:MLHC:133
Sujit Sarkar who are involved in a case registered as Khliehriat P.S. Case
No. 47(06)2023 under Section 279/307/353/427 IPC read with Section
20(b)(ii)(c)/29 NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Ms. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the accused persons in question were occupants of a vehicle
bearing Registration No. TR 01BW 0231 which was driven by the accused
person, Tutan Sarkar. It is also submitted that on 19.06.2023 one vehicle
bearing Registration No. TR 01BT 0265 driven by one Joyel Das which
was intercepted during Naka checking at Nongsnging near BMS Fuel
Station, East Jaintia Hills District wherein the police personnel on
conducting a search of the vehicle had discovered a large quantity of alleged
contraband substance. Accordingly, the occupants of the said vehicle were
all arrested and booked under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.
3. During investigation, an examination of the said occupants of
the vehicle, it was the statement of the accused person, Joyel Das that the
contraband substance belonged to one Shri. Karnajit Sarkar who was the
occupant of the vehicle driven by the said accused person, Tutun Sarkar.
Accordingly, on such complicity being linked, the occupants of the vehicle
bearing No. TR 01BW 0231 were arrested in connection with the case.
4. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) had
noted the statement of several witnesses including the accused persons.
Such statements being recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and eventually
on finding a prima facie case well established against such accused person,
the IO had put up the matter for a proper trial before the competent court of
jurisdiction wherein the case is now registered as Special (NDPS) Case No.
2
2025:MLHC:133
25 of 2023 to be tried by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) at Khliehriat,
East Jaintia Hills District.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has however submitted
that the accused persons whom she is representing, are not at all involved
in the case inasmuch as the alleged contraband substance was not seized
from the vehicle that they were travelling but they were implicated by Joyel
Das and others, without any proof of their involvement in the case.
6. The accused person having been incarcerated in custody for
about one year and five months, it is therefore prayed that the prayer made
for grant of bail may be allowed with any conditions to be imposed by this
Court.
7. Per contra, Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the State
has strongly opposed the prayer made and has led this Court to the petition
itself, particularly at page 26 of the same wherein is found the statement of
Shri. Joyel Das who had clearly given the details of how the incident had
taken place and that the said contraband was indeed discovered from the
vehicle he was driven. Further, Joyel Das had also stated that the said
contraband substance belongs to one Karnajit Sarkar who was proceeding
in the other vehicle, that is, TR 01BW 0231 along with the accused persons
named herein. Therefore, under such circumstances, there is no doubt that
the accused persons in question are involved in the case.
8. In fact, from the statements of the abovementioned two accused
persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the same have been stated and
admitted by them to the extent that they have not denied that there exist the
contraband which was stored in the vehicle driven by Joyel Das and that
3
2025:MLHC:133
the same belongs to Karnajit Sarkar who had offered the accused persons
money to accompany him.
9. The learned GA has submitted that under such circumstances
the prayer of the petitioners may not be allowed and the trial may be
allowed to be carried out in this regard.
10. This Court has given thoughtful consideration of the submission
made. Firstly, it is not denied by the parties that the alleged illegal
contraband substance was indeed seized from the said vehicle no. TR 01BT
0265. The fact that the two named accused herein are occupants of the other
vehicle was also not denied by them, though it is claimed that they have no
knowledge or rather no involvement as far as the matter concerning the
illegal contraband substance is concerned. Their link to the alleged owner
of the said contraband substance and the proximity of the two vehicles when
the same was intercepted at the said Naka Check Post is also borne out by
records.
11. It is also evident that the case was registered under the relevant
provision of the NDPS Act including Section 20(b)(ii)(B) which speaks of
seizure of alleged contraband substance of commercial quantity. This leads
this Court to another aspect of the matter, that is, the provision of Section
37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 wherein it is stipulated that in any case
concerning seizure of commercial quantity of contraband substance, when
bail is to be considered, the same may not be allowed unless, firstly, the
public prosecutor is given notice of the hearing of such application for bail
and secondly, if the court is of the opinion that the accused person in
question is innocent.
4
2025:MLHC:133
12. As indicated above, prima facie, this Court is not convinced that
the accused persons in question are innocent, prima facie, and thus being
hit by the provision of Section 37 wherein grant of bail is generally taken
in the negative sense rather than the positive, therefore under such
circumstances this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer made in these
petitions.
13. Petitions dismissed as devoid of merits and the same are
disposed of accordingly.
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR
Date: 2025.03.04 18:10:16 5
PST
[ad_1]
Source link