Meghalaya HC Refuses Bail To Woman Arrested In NDPS Case 9 Months Ago, Says Investigating Agency Be Given Wide Latitude To Curb Drug Menace

Bench of Justice W.Diengdoh observed,

“It is incumbent upon the society as well as 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”.

The petitioner was arrested on October 27, 2022 after being implicated as a drug supplier by the co-accused.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that no contraband or narcotic drugs were found in her possession, and the mobile handset and sim allegedly used for communication with co-accused did not belong to her.

State counsel submitted that 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.

At the outset, the Court noted that trial against petitioner had begun and the next date fixed for the case is for production and submission of CFSL. "This would only indicate that 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," it observed.

The bench also emphasised on the seriousness of drug-related offenses and their adverse effects on society, especially on the youth. The court acknowledged that the grant or denial of bail is within the judge's discretion, guided by legal precedents and the facts of the case.

Observing that the offence alleged against the accused-petitioner is one under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which speaks of punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy as regard offence punishable under Chapter IV of the NDPS Act, Section 21(c) being included therein, the bench explained that, 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.

Considering the possibility of the accused being connected to the alleged offence, particularly under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the court said that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused person could be involved.

In view of said observations the bench denied relied to the petitioner.

Case Title: Shri. Khupliansum Vs. State of Meghalaya

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 29

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment