BA/49/2024 of LILY MAWII Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 ORS. on 19 September 2024

1. Heard Mr. R. Sharon, learned counsel for the petitioner, whohas submitted that on the basis of an FIR dated 16.07.2023 lodged byShri, B. Bhattacharjee, MPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime),East Jaintia Hills District, wherein the Officer-in-Charge, KhliehriatPolice Station, East Jaintia Hills District was informed of theapprehension of two ladies who were travelling in a Tata Sumo TouristVehicle No. MZ 04 A 2996, while proceeding from Silchar towardsKhliehriat, the said vehicle being intercepted at Nongsning Petrol Pump,East Jaintia Hills District, since the occupants of the vehicle weresuspected to be carrying illegal contraband on search being made, illegalcontraband, weighing about 91.81 grams and 105.54 grams, positivelytested to be heroin was recovered from the person of two of the saidoccupants of the said vehicle.

2. Accordingly, the FIR was registered as Khliehriat P.S CaseNo. 53(07) 23 u/s 21(b)/27/29 NDPS Act and investigation was launched.In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) had arrested thetwo ladies present in the said Tata Sumo and on the basis of theirinformation, three more persons were arrested, including the uncle of thepetitioner Shri. Khailien Haokip, who was arrested on 03.08.2023 fromhis rented house at Umpling, Shillong.

3. According to the learned counsel, no case can be made outagainst the accused Uncle of the petitioner since he was not apprehendedat the place of occurrence, therefore, no seizure of any alleged contrabandsubstance was made from his person. The statement of the accused personin question either under Section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. or even under Section67 of the NDPS Act, have also not been recorded. In fact, his namefigured only in the list of the accused persons against whom the I/O hasconcluded that prima facie, a well-established case under Section21(b)/29 NDPS Act is found established, in the absence of any concreteevidence against him.

4. The I/O on completion of his investigation, has filed thecharge sheet, finding that prima facie, a well-established case has been made out against the five accused persons named therein, and they aredirected to face trial for the offence under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPSAct, 1985. The stage of the case at present is that two witnesses havebeen examined as prosecution witnesses. Even from the evidence of thesaid two witnesses, the involvement of the accused Uncle of the petitionerhas not been mentioned, submits the learned counsel.

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that no case ismade out against the accused person in question, except for the fact thathis wife is well known to the accused Lhing Hoakip since they are fromthe same village and they used to communicate very often, especially inview of the prevailing situation in the State of Manipur.

6. The learned counsel has made an impassionate plea on behalfof the accused person in question to say that he has four minor childrenwho are left without shelter as their house was destroyed by thunderstormand incessant rainfall and as such, if allowed to go on bail, he will complywith any conditions as deemed fit to be imposed by this Court.

7. Mr. K. Khan, learned P.P appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents has submitted that on perusal of the case dairy (C.D), copy ofwhich is produced before this Court, what can be seen is that the complicity of the accused Uncle of the petitioner is proved, inasmuch as,from the statement of the co-accused, what has emerged is that theaccused Uncle of the petitioner along with his wife have been named asthe main financial supplier to facilitate the supply of the said contraband.

8. This Court on going through the materials on record, that is,the application in hand as well as the C.D, and on consideration of thesubmission of the learned counsels on both sides, is to come to a findingas to whether a case has been made out for grant of bail to the accusedUncle of the petitioner.

9. Since the charge sheet has been filed, charges were alsoframed and the case is at the stage of recording of evidence of theprosecution’s witnesses, therefore, it can be said that no furtherinvestigation is required. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitionerhas contended that the accused Uncle of the petitioner has beenunnecessarily implicated in the case only for the reason that he and hiswife are acquaintances with two of the co-accused in the case, however,no contraband substance was ever seized from his person, no call detailsreport has been produced, and that his statement under Section 161 or 164of the Cr.P.C. or one under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was ever recorded and as such, the accused Uncle of the petitioner ought to beenlarged on bail.

10. This Court on perusal of the C.D, have noticed that from thestatement of the accused person Smti. Ngai Rami Simte, the story thatcomes out is that this accused person is a drug peddler at Shillong, whoused to receive the substance from one Lalboi, a resident of Manipur.Lalboi in turn has informed her that he is sending a consignment of20(twenty) boxes of the illegal contraband substance through Smti. LhingHaokip and Smti. Hohoi Lhanghal (two of the other co-accused). Thisaccused person has further stated that this transaction was done with thefinancial support of the accused Uncle of the petitioner and his wife.

11. Again, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioneris not correct when it was submitted that no statement of the accusedUncle of the petitioner was ever recorded by the Investigating Office(I/O). From the C.D, it is seen that the I/O has indeed recorded thestatement of the accused Uncle of the petitioner on 18.07.2024 at 11:05pm, on the same day he was arrested. In his statement, he has clearlyindicated that he knows Lalboi from whom he procured the contrabandwhich was then sent to the co-accused Smti. Ngai Rami Simte after paying her 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs). This can only strengthen₹the case of the prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances.

12. Though filing of the charge sheet cannot be a bar for grant ofbail, it must not be forgotten that even though the cardinal principle ofbail jurisprudence is “bail and not jail”, facts and circumstances of aparticular case has to be taken into account to consider the nature andgravity of the offence involved, the evidence against the personconcerned, the likelihood of his or her absconding, if enlarged on bail andother related factors.

13. It is on record that the accused Uncle of the petitioner is notonly involved in this single case, but has also been implicated in anothercase, also under the various sections of the NDPS Act. The fact that he isa resident of the State of Manipur, though not a bar, but in the light of hisalleged involvement in the case, there is a likelihood of him being a flightrisk. The most important aspect of the matter that has weigh heavily uponthis Court is the gravity and nature of the crime in question, that is, theimpact of the effect of drug addiction as a result of such contrabandsubstance being easily available in this State. The alarming situationcould not but be termed as one of a very serious nature for which in cases of this kind, the court has to balance the consideration of private rightsand liberty vis-à-vis societal protection and interest.

14. Though this Court would not come to any conclusion as to thecomplicity of the accused person in question as far as the case pendingbefore the Trial Court is concerned, however, it is thought prudent toallow the whole body of evidence to be produced for which the TrialCourt is competent to do so and to finally come to the findings andconclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the said accused person inquestion.

15. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that thisapplication is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

16. Matter disposed of. No costs.

Judge