[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Dilip Kumar Sahani vs The State Of Tripura on 11 December, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A. No.107 of 2025
Sri Dilip Kumar Sahani,
S/O Ganesh Sahani, resident of Gobhatta, P.S. Budhuchak, Dist.
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of
Smti. Rupa Devi,
W/O Sri Dilip Kumar, resident of Gobhatta, P.S. Budhuchak, Dist.
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
......... Accused person(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
B.A. No.108 of 2025
Sri Pappu Kumar Yedav @ Banu Mandal,
S/O Kokay Mandal, resident of Damelighat, P.S. Mirganj, Dist. Purnia,
Bihar.
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of
Smti. Ruchi Kumari,
W/O Sri Pappu Kumar Yedav, resident of Damelighat, P.S. Mirganj, Dist.
Purnia, Bihar.
......... Accused person(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
B.A. No.109 of 2025
Smt. Chanda Devi,
W/O Ranjit Kumar Sahni, resident of Gobhatta, P.S. Budhuchak, Dist.
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of
Sri Ranjit Kumar Shahani,
S/O Sri Ganesh Shahani, resident of Gobhatta, P.S. Budhuchak, Dist.
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
......... Accused person(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 20
B.A. No.110 of 2025
Sri Pappu Mandal,
S/O Bucho Mandal, resident of Naugachia, Bhagalpur, P.S. Naugachia,
Dist. Bhagalpur, Bihar.
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of
Smti. Laxmi Devi,
W/O Sri Pappu Mandal, resident of Naugachia, Bhagalpur, P.S.
Naugachia, Dist. Bhagalpur, Bihar.
......... Accused person(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
B.A. No.111 of 2025
Sri Salendar Maldar,
S/O Godo Sahni, resident of Bhagalpur, P.S. Bhagalpur, Dist. Bhagalpur,
Bihar.
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of
Smti. Pinki Devi,
W/O Sri Salendar Maldar, resident of Bhagalpur, P.S. Bhagalpur, Dist.
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
......... Accused person(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. Debajit Biswas, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Date of hearing and : 11th December, 2025.
delivery of
Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting : √
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
All the bail applications are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment as all the bail applications
have arisen out of the same police case.
[2] On 13.07.2025, WSI Sumitra Debbarma while
performing vehicle checking duty at Trishabari area noticed that
five passengers with their luggages got down from one passenger
vehicle to go to Teliamura Railway Station. Seeing the police all of
them stopped their movement. Out of suspicion, the informant with
other police personnel cordoned them, informed SDPO, Teliamura
and asked for presence of one Executive Magistrate to cause
search. Accordingly, SDPO, Teliamura and one Executive Magistrate
arrived there and on search total 32Kg of ganja was recovered from
the possession of said five accused persons namely, Ranjit Kumar
Shahani, Ruchi Kumari, Pinki Devi, Laxmi Devi and Rupa Devi, on
behalf of all of whom the present bail applications are filed.
[3] The individual possession of ganja by said five accused
persons, as alleged in the FIR, are as follows:
Sl. Name of the accused Quantity of alleged ganja
No. person recovered
1. Ranjit Kumar Shahani 6kg 750 gm from one
luggage and further 6kg
from another white colour
bag, total 12.750 gm
2. Ruchi Kumari 5kg 250 gm
3. Pinki Devi 5kg 250 gm
4. Laxmi Devi 5kg 250 gm
5. Rupa Devi 3kg 500 gm
All the packets so found from said accused persons were
wrapped with brown colour adhesive tape.
[4] Police arrested them and after that FIR was registered
by said WSI Sumitra Debbarma. SI Rajendra Reang completed the
investigation and submitted the charge sheet against all of them
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act).
[5] Mr. Debajit Biswas, learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the investigating officer as well as the learned Special
Judge have committed error in taking the seized articles into
consideration collectively, treating the same to be of commercial
quantity, though all the accused persons were allegedly found to
have possessed intermediate quantity of such ganja individually.
According to Mr. Biswas, learned counsel, in absence of any
meeting of mind and materials of criminal conspiracy, collective
weight of the total seized ganja cannot be taken into consideration
and as everyone was allegedly found to have possessed
intermediate quantity of the same, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS
Act will not be applicable. Therefore, learned counsel submits, all
the accused petitioners are entitled to get bail. Mr. Biswas, learned
counsel also relies on some decisions which will be discussed in the
relevant paragraphs.
[6] Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P., on the other hand, submits
that all the accused persons arrived at Teliamura Railway Station
together by the same vehicle for boarding in the same train to go
to Bihar and during interrogation also they admitted that they came
from Bihar together to collect such ganja. Therefore, there were
prima facie materials to presume existence of criminal conspiracy
amongst them.
[7] The core questions fall for consideration in these bail
applications are- whether, in view of the materials collected by the
investigating officer, the alleged ganja as were recovered and
seized from each of the accused person are required to be counted
collectively or individually and whether the accused petitioners are
entitled to get bail. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is
necessary to examine the position of law in this regard.
[8] Section 35 of the NDPS Act deals with presumption of
culpable mental state of an accused person involved in any
prosecution for commission of any offence under the Act. Said
provision envisages that in any prosecution for offence under the
Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, Court
shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a
defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such
mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that
prosecution. In explanation provided in that Section it is further
enumerated that "culpable mental state" includes intention motive,
knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. Sub-
section (2) of Section 35 further provides that for the purpose of
Section 35, a fact is said to be proved only when the Court believes
it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its
existence is established by a preponderance of probability. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhola Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2011) 11
SCC 653 has held that as this section imposed a heavy reverse
burden on an accused, the condition for the applicability of this and
other related sections would have to be spelt out on facts and it
was only after the prosecution had discharged the initial burden to
prove the foundational facts that Section 35 would come into play.
[9] Section 29 of the Act provides for punishment for
abetment and criminal conspiracy. As per sub-section (1) of Section
29 whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such
offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment
or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding
anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, be
punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.
[10] Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short BNS) defines abetment. According to said provision a person
abets the doing of a thing, who--
(a) instigates any person to do that thing; or
(b) engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
[11] Section 61 of BNS similarly defines criminal conspiracy
in the following manner:
―61. (1) When two or more persons agree with the common
object to do, or cause to be done-
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit
an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless
some act besides the agreement is done by one or more
parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental
to that object.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,-
(a) to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term
of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision
is made in this Sanhita for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence;
(b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding
six months, or with fine or with both.‖
[Corresponding to old provision of erstwhile Section 120A
of IPC]
[12] While interpreting said provision Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra;
(1980) 2 SCC 465 held that a conspiracy is always hatched in
secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same.
The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn
from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in
pursuance of a common design. In the same line, in the case of
Kehar Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.); (1988) 3 SCC 609, the
Hon'ble Apex Court further held as follows:
"275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it
may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The
prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various
parties to infer that they were done in reference to their
common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely
upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be
undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or
circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two
persons are independently pursuing the same end or they
have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object.
The former does not render them conspirators, but the
latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of
conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of
agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be
proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary.
Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of
communication. The evidence as to transmission of
thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be
sufficient........................................................‖
[13] In Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar vs. State
of Maharashtra; (1981) 2 SCC 443 it is also again reiterated
that for an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not
necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or
cause to be done the illegal act and the agreement may be proved
by necessary implication.
[14] Later on in K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala;
(2005) 12 SCC 631 also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observes that
to constitute a criminal conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or
more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is
the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the
conspirators must know each and every detail of conspiracy.
Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes
active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts.
It is further held that the agreement amongst the conspirators can
be inferred by necessary implication and in most of the cases, the
conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the
conspiracy is seldom an open affair. As a matter of caution, it is
also further observed that it is incumbent on the Court to keep in
mind the well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence viz.
each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly
established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved
must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible
conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn, and
no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. (emphasis laid)
[15] In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu; (2005)
11 SCC 600 also it was observed that in reaching the stage of
meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about
doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first
stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for
committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among
those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to
do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form
the requisite intention would be parties to the agreement and
would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in
as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they
commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention
can be inferred. It was further observed that mostly, the
conspiracies are proved by circumstantial evidence and usually both
the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred
from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. Similar
caution was also reiterated that every incriminating circumstance
must clearly be established by reliable evidence and the
circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which
the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of accused can be
safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.
[16] Similar view was also again expressed in Sudhir
Shantilal Mehta vs. CBI; (2009) 8 SCC 1 that the existence of
the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the
incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from
which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn.
[17] From the above said decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it is quite clear that direct evidence of conspiracy is hard to
be made available as it always hatched in secrecy and therefore,
same is required to be inferred from the acts or illegal omission of
the accused conspirator. Above the same, the existence of
conspiracy, if any, is required to be examined in the given facts and
circumstances of each case and the Court is to examine whether
existence of meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing
such an illegal act or lawful act by illegal means are available in the
materials collected during investigation and evidences adduced
thereafter. Therefore, what has been decided by the Court in the
light of available evidences in a particular case may not
straightaway be applied in another case where the involved facts
and circumstances are different.
[18] Mr. Debajit Biswas, learned counsel relies on a decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nadeem Ahamed vs.
State of West Bengal in a criminal appeal arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No(s).9446-9447 of 2025 decided on 05.08.2025
wherein one police officer based on a secret information that two
male persons would be coming to supply heroin in the evening of
the same day at Pragati Maidan, proceeded to the scheduled
location to keep an watch and ultimately detained two persons on
pointing towards them by his source. From the co-accused, police
officer recovered 130 gms of suspected heroin whereas from
Nadeem Ahamed, 125 gms of such suspected heroin was
recovered. In that backdrop, it was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that merely because the two accused, walking side
by-side, were apprehended simultaneously, and both were carrying
narcotic drug concealed on their body, said coincidental happening
(emphasis laid), by itself, would not give rise to an inference that
either of them had the knowledge about the contraband being
carried by the other.
[19] Mr. Biswas, learned counsel also relies on another
decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Aryan Shah Rukh
Khan vs. the Union of India and another; Criminal Bail
Application No.3624 of 2021 decided on 28.10.2021 wherein
the appellants were apprehended while they were about to board or
had already boarded (emphasis laid) in a cruise from Mumbai to go
to Goa. From two accused persons namely, Arbaaz and Munmun 6
grams and 5 grams of charas respectively were recovered. Accused
Aryan and accused Arbaaz were students whereas accused
Munmum was working in the field of modelling. High Court
observed that accused Aryan was not found in possession of any
objectionable substance. The High Court also further observed that
applicant Nos.1 and 2 were travelling together whereas applicant
No.3 had an independent travel plan which had no connection with
the travel of Applicant Nos. 1 & 2 and even after going through the
Whats-App chats extracted from the phone of applicant No.1,
nothing objectionable could be noticed to suggest that all the three
applicants alongwith other accused persons were in agreement to
have meeting of minds and therefore, there was absence of
material on record of such meeting of minds with other accused
who were named in the offence in question.
[20] Mr. Biswas, learned counsel further refers to an order of
Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated 07.04.2025 in the case of
Abdul Hamid vs. Union Territory of J&K and another; Bail
App No.261 of 2024 wherein one car was detained by police
during Naka checking wherein three persons including driver was
found. On physical frisking, 104.89 gms of suspected heroin was
found from the person who was sitting on the rear seat and from
the driver, 106.86 gms of heroin was recovered. Finally, the High
Court while examining the facts of the case observed that the
contraband found from the possession of the applicant was less
than commercial quantity and granted him bail.
[21] Mr. Biswas, learned counsel further relies on two
decisions of a Coordinate Bench of this Court which are Sri Binod
Sahni and others vs. the State of Tripura; B.A. No.83 of 2025
decided on 26.09.2025 and Sri Umeshwar Prasad Singh vs.
the State of Tripura; B.A. No.104 of 2025 decided on
10.11.2025. In Sri Binod Sahni's case, four female accused
were apprehended at Agartala Railway Station and intermediate
quantity of ganja was recovered from the possession of each of
them. In that case, investigation was not completed and charge
sheet was not submitted when that bail application was being
heard. While examining the materials so collected by the
investigating officer till that date, the Court observed that there
was no material for application of Section 29 in said case and that
in the seizure list, individual possession of ganja by each of the
accused was shown and not the collective possession. If the
investigating officer could show in the seizure list that collectively
23kg 625g of dry ganja was found from the possession of the
accused persons, in that case, it could have been believed that
Section 20(b)(ii)(C) would be attracted. May be for that reason
learned Bench proceeded further to observe that even if it was
assumed that 23kg 625g of dry ganja was recovered collectively
from the accused and if the case was ended in charge-sheet, in
that case at the time of framing of charge the concerned Court was
to indicate the amount of contraband items recovered from the
possession of each one of the accused persons and not total
quantum of contraband items recovered.
[22] In Sri Umeshwar Prasad Singh, 8.185 kg of ganja
was recovered from the applicant accused and further 14.360 kg
was recovered from another accused when they were detained at
Agartala Railway Station before departure of Tejas Rajdhani
Express on the particular date of incident. In the factual position of
that case, the Court observed that there was no scope on the part
of prosecution to sustain that the present accused had possessed
contraband item of commercial quantity and therefore, the Court
did not accept applicability of joint possession or collective
possession of commercial quantity of ganja by the two accused
persons in the said case.
[23] Section 29(1) of the NDPS Act clearly envisages that
whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable under the Chapter, shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, be
punishable with the punishment provided for the offence and
therefore, such conspirator is required to be charged for the
principle offence. If there are three persons involved in a
conspiracy for transportation of commercial quantity of contraband
items and thereafter commercial quantity of such contraband item
is recovered from one person and intermediate quantity of item is
recovered from another and nothing is recovered from the third
one, still, all will be charged for commission of illegal transportation
of total quantity of such contraband item i.e. for transportation of
commercial quantity, otherwise Court will not be able to frame any
charge against the third accused from whom no such contraband
was recovered.
[24] In Nadeem Ahamed (Supra), as discussed above, two
persons were detained and 130 gms of heroin was recovered from
one and 125 gms was recovered from another i.e. with recovery of
total 255 gms collectively. The Trial Court convicted the accused
persons. The High Court declined to condone the delay in filing the
appeal thereagainst. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that backdrop
observed that if at all prosecution intended to bring home the
charge of conspiracy, and club the contraband recovered from both
the accused persons together (emphasis laid), then positive proof
to support the charge of conspiracy had to be presented. Such
observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court otherwise means that where
there are positive proof of conspiracy, the whole quantity of the
contrabands recovered from all the accused persons shall be
clubbed together. The relevant paragraph No.23 of the said case
wherein such discussions were made are reproduced hereunder:
―23. If at all the prosecution intended to bring home the
charge of conspiracy, and club the contraband recovered
from both the accused persons together, then positive
proof to support the charge of conspiracy had to be
presented. Such proof could not be substituted with mere
inferences or conjectures. Positive and tangible evidence
was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt,
that both accused persons had prior knowledge of the
contraband in the other's possession. However, upon
carefully analysing the evidence available on record, we
find that, apart from the bald allegation that both the
accused were seen walking together and were searched
one after the other, not even a semblance of evidence
was led by the prosecution, which can substantiate the
charge of prior conspiracy between the two accused
persons.‖
In K.R. Purushothaman (Supra) also it is held that it
is not necessary that everyone of the conspirators takes active part
in the commission of each and every conspirational act. Therefore,
in view of the above, it is immaterial whether all the conspirators
are in possession of such narcotic item or who is possessing how
much of it's quantity. Hence, such observation in Sri Binod Sahni
(Supra) only to the extent that while framing the charge, the
concerned Court is to indicate the amount of contraband recovered
from the possession of each of the accused persons and not the
total quantum of contraband items recovered, is not in the line of
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nadeem
Ahamed (Supra) and K.R. Purushothaman (Supra) and
therefore, same will be treated as observations made in the
contexts of that case and not as a binding precedent or as a
general rule.
[25] In another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat;
(2005) 7 SCC 550, the relevant facts involved therein were that
based on the information received from secret source that two
persons namely, Amarsingh and Danabhai, having particular
physical descriptions, were likely to come from village Dhima to
Deesa town through Tharad Cross Roads carrying opium. The police
arrived at the relevant place and maintained a watch. After some
time a jeep from village Dhima arrived there and two persons
alighted from the said jeep and were found to have physical
descriptions matching with those given by the source. When they
were entering into a hotel, they were intercepted and ultimately,
920 grams of liquid opium (posedoda) was recovered from
Amarsingh and 4.250 kg of opium was recovered from Danabhai.
Apart from the offences under Sections 15, 17 and 18, they were
also charged with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. They were convicted
for jointly possessing those items. Both of them filed appeal before
the High Court but during pendency of the appeal, Danabhai
expired and his appeal abated. The High Court while dealing with
the appeal filed by Amarsingh observed that conviction of
Amarsingh under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 29 of the
NDPS Act was not correct, but he was liable to be convicted under
Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the Act, for individually being
in possession of 920 grams of opium and for being, in conspiracy
with the deceased, jointly in possession of 4.250 kgs of the
prohibited substance of opium which collectively was categorized as
commercial quantity and accordingly, the appellant was punished
for 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The
High Court also observed that even if, only the quantity of 920
grams recovered from the appellant alone were to be considered
then also it would warrant conviction under Section 21(c) wherein
the minimum sentence is of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment plus
fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
[26] In appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court finally observed that
920 gm of liquid substance falls within the category of
"manufactured drug" in view of provision of Section 2 (xi) of the
Act and therefore, the offence proved against the appellant was
Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for illicit possession of manufactured
drug and thereby maintained the conviction and sentence on that
score. So far the conviction rendered by the High Court with the aid
of Section 29 of the NDPS is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that there was no evidence to suggest that there was any
such abetment or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section
29 of the NDPS Act in said case. It was also further observed that
the appellant and Danabhai were found together, but individually
carrying the recovered substances and therefore, it was not
possible for the High Court to take the view that Section 29 was
attracted. The fact of said case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot
(Supra) is to some extent similar to the case in the hand that in
both cases, the accused persons got down from the same vehicle
before they were intercepted.
[27] On consideration of the materials collected by the
investigating officer in the case diary till filing of charge sheet, it
transpires that all the above said five accused persons came near
Teliamura Railway Station by a common passenger vehicle and
alighted from it with their respective bags wherefrom such
contraband items were recovered. Further materials available are
that seeing the police personnel, they stopped from further
movement and were looking to their own bags. After they were
detained and searched, the seized items were recovered. But
certain deficiencies are also noticed in the investigation. The
investigation officer failed to collect materials as to whether all of
them boarded in the said vehicle from a single a point or from
different places. The investigating officer failed to examine the
driver of the said vehicle. There is also no material to justify the
claim of the investigating officer that on the same day they
boarded into the train on 09.07.2025 from Bihar and that they
stayed together somewhere at Sidhai, Mohanpur area. No prima
facie materials is also collected by the investigating officer about
their destination(s) on return. Therefore, considering all these
aspects and also in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot (Supra), prima
facie, it is observed that ingredients of Section 29 of the NDPS Act
is missing in this case. The evidences so collected by the
investigating officer is deficient regarding the meeting of minds of
the accused persons for doing such illegal act. If individual quantity
as recovered from each of the accused is taken into consideration,
said quantity comes within the category of intermediate quantity.
[28] The investigating officer in his charge-sheet has prayed
for custodial trial of all the accused persons on the ground that
there is no relative of said accused persons in the State of Tripura
and therefore, if released on bail, they will abscond and they may
commit similar offences further. So far the former part of
apprehension is concerned, same may be taken care of while
granting bail, but so far the latter part of apprehension is
concerned, there is no material placed by the investigating officer
to draw any such presumption.
[29] Considering all these aspects, all the bail applications
are allowed. The accused petitioners namely, Rupa Devi, Ruchi
Kumari, Ranjit Kumar Shahani, Laxmi Devi and Pinki Devi shall be
released on bail on furnishing bond by each of them for
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with one surety each to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Khowai with the following
conditions that:
(i) the accused persons will not leave the jurisdiction
of learned Special Judge without prior permission of said Court.
(ii) after being released on bail, within 15 days
therefrom, they will inform learned Special Judge about their place
of residence in Tripura.
(iii) they will not try to influence in any manner any
witness of the case and will regularly appear before the Court to
face trial.
In case of violation of any of the above said conditions,
learned Special Judge will be at liberty to cancel the bail following
the due procedure of law.
With the above said observations and directions, all the
bail applications are disposed of.
Send a copy of this order immediately to learned Special
Judge, Khowai.
Re-consign the case diary to learned P.P. with copy of
this order.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
It is, however, clarified that whatever observations are
made hereinabove, are made only for limited purpose for deciding
the merit of the bail applications and such observations will have no
bearing in the trial of the case.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Rudradeep RUDRADEEP BANERJEE Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Date: 2025.12.11 17:31:17 +05'30'
