Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act

Meghalaya High Court refused to grant bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), emphasizing the strict conditions of Section 37 and the absence of any prima facie proof of innocence.

Justice W. Diengdoh, while dismissing Bail Application No. 1 of 2025, held that courts must exercise extreme caution in granting bail in serious drug-related offences, where the law mandates that the accused must prove that he is "not guilty" and "unlikely to commit any offence while on bail." The Court observed:

“The law is clear—bail in NDPS cases can only be granted if the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty. At this stage, no such satisfaction can be recorded.”

The case involved an accused found traveling in a passenger bus with heroin concealed inside an inverter placed beneath his seat. Rejecting his claim that he was unaware of the contraband, the Court ruled that such defenses must be tested at trial, not at the bail stage.

"Mere Presence Near Drugs is Not Enough, But the Burden Lies on the Accused"
The accused, Siraj Ali, was arrested after police discovered 79.81 grams of heroin hidden inside an inverter in a brown carton beneath his seat during a routine bus check. His father, Barak Ali, who filed the bail application, argued that his son was merely a passenger in the bus and had no knowledge of the contraband.

The defense relied on Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab and Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha, where courts held that mere passive presence does not establish possession of drugs. It was contended that police had falsely implicated the accused without any material proof linking him to the contraband.

However, the Court rejected these arguments, making it clear that in NDPS cases, the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate the absence of knowledge or possession.

“Whether the accused had knowledge of the drugs is a question of fact that must be established through evidence. At the bail stage, the burden is on the accused to prove lack of knowledge. Mere assertions are not enough to satisfy the conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act.”

The Court emphasized that questions of “conscious possession” cannot be decided at the bail stage and must be determined during trial through evidence.

"Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters Must be Exercised Cautiously in Drug Cases"
Referring to Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Court stressed that while bail is a right, it is not absolute in NDPS cases. The Court noted that drug-related offences pose a serious threat to society, and judicial discretion must be exercised with caution to prevent drug traffickers from misusing bail provisions.

"The menace of drugs is threatening to destroy lives and society. It is the duty of the courts to combat this problem by ensuring that stringent legal provisions are adhered to."

The Court cited Shri Khupliansum v. State of Meghalaya and observed:“The scourge of drugs yields disastrous consequences on the health of young people, the well-being of the family, the spread of crime, and the destruction of economies by financial flows of obscure origins.”

Holding that drug cases require strict judicial oversight, the Court ruled that bail cannot be granted unless the accused conclusively proves his innocence—a burden that had not been met in this case.

"Bail Denied, But Trial Must Proceed Without Unnecessary Delay"
The prosecution submitted that only three witnesses remained to be examined, and the trial was at the charge consideration stage. Since the case was progressing without undue delay, the Court held that there was no reason to grant bail at this juncture.

“Since the trial is progressing and not unduly delayed, it would not be appropriate to release the accused at this stage. He has the opportunity to defend himself in court.”

The Court, therefore, dismissed the bail application, stating: “As far as proof is concerned, at this point of time, this Court cannot come to any conclusion as to whether there is any proof for or against the accused person in question. It is a matter of trial where evidence has to be led in this regard.”

The Meghalaya High Court's decision reaffirms the strict legal framework governing NDPS bail cases and sends a strong message that courts will not be lenient in drug-related offences. By denying bail under Section 37 NDPS Act, the Court underscored that:

Mere presence near contraband does not establish possession, but the accused must prove lack of knowledge.
Judicial discretion in NDPS bail matters must be exercised cautiously to prevent misuse of bail provisions.
Swift trials should ensure that accused persons do not remain in prolonged custody without due process.
This ruling strengthens the judiciary’s role in combating drug-related crimes, ensuring that the law serves both justice and public safety while maintaining due process.

Date of Decision: 28 January 2025