Umeshwar Prasad Singh vs State Of Tripura

Biswajit Palit, J

This application under Section 483(1) of BNSS, 2023 is filed for granting bail to the accused person in custody namely, Smt. Manju Devi in connection with Agartala GRPS case No.2025 GRPS 053 for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(iii)(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh appearing on behalf of the accused person. Also heard Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

As ordered earlier, this Court has received the record from the Learned Trial Court and Learned Addl. P.P. has also produced the case diary.

At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the accused person in custody has drawn the attention of this Court to the suo moto complaint dated 05.05.2025 and submitted that from the contents of the complaint, it will be clearly transpired that on the alleged day 8.185 kg of contraband item was recovered from the possession of the present accused person and from another accused, Smt. Rachana Devi, 14.360 kg of ganja was recovered. Accordingly, the case was registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act. Learned Counsel for the accused in custody submitted that practically the offence should be punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act but, the police has wrongly registered the case for which the present accused person has been languishing in jail for a long period of time i.e. w.e.f. 06.05.2025. Learned Counsel further submitted that the I.O. has laid charge-sheet against both the accused persons by this time and now, the case is pending before the Court of Learned Special Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala for disposal. Considering the long incarceration of the accused in custody and the nature of allegation, Learned Counsel urged for releasing the present accused on bail in any condition.

Learned Counsel for the accused in custody also relied upon the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by this Court in BA No.83 of 2025 and submitted that in the said order, this Court categorically explained as to how a case may be treated under the relevant provisions of NDPS Act in case the quantum of ganja is lesser than the commercial quantity but higher than small quantity.

On the other hand, Learned Addl. P.P. strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that from the interrogation report it is clear that both the present accused person and the another accused are mother and daughter and they jointly committed the offence so, the matter should be dealt with considering the total quantum of contraband items as “commercial quantity” and not under “intermediate quantity”. Learned Addl. P.P. therefore urged for dismissal of the present bail application.

The prosecution case, in short, is that Inspr. Ubaydur Rahaman, Agartala GRPS, West Tripura on 05.05.2025 laid an F.I.R. to O/C GRPS alleging inter alia that on 05.05.2025 at about 1405 hours he along with other staff led by Inspr. Tapas Das performed checking duty before departure of Tejas Rajdhani Express which was scheduled to depart from the station at about 1500 hours. At about 1515 hours they found two women were entering in platform No.1 secretly and hurriedly through parcel gate carrying three heavy bags with them and out of suspicion, they detained both the women at platform No.1 adjacent to Public Lavatory. After checking, total 22.405 kg of ganja was recovered from their possession. One accused namely, Smt. Rachana Devi possessed 14.360 kg of ganja and the present accused possessed 8.185 kg of ganja. Thereafter, as per the procedure the contraband item was seized. The accused persons were taken into custody and the F.I.R. was laid. After completion of investigation, by this time the I.O. has laid charge-sheet against both the accused persons.

I have heard both the sides at length and perused the relevant prosecution papers.

The trial of this case has not yet been commenced. The case in now pending for preparation and supplying of accused copy. Further, from the record it is found that by order dated 18.09.2025 cognizance of offence was taken under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

Now, let me refer hereinbelow the provision of Section 20 of NDPS Act which provides as under:

“20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.—Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or

(b)produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,—

(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),—

(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;

(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.]”

From the aforesaid provision of the NDPS Act it appears that in Section 20(b) the language used by the legislature is “produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis”, which means “possession along with other ingredients”.

Now, if we see the prosecution case i.e. the seizure list, it appears that on the alleged day the prosecuting officer seized 8.185 kg of ganja from the possession of the present accused in custody and the rest 14.360 kg of ganja was seized from the possession of another accused. By this time, the I.O. has laid charge-sheet. If this is the factual position, then, where is the scope on the part of the prosecution to sustain that the present accused in custody possessed contraband item of commercial quantity?

In course of hearing, Learned Addl. P.P. in this regard could not give any explanation. Learned Addl. P.P. only submitted that both the accused persons are mother and daughter.

I cannot agree with the submission of Learned Addl. P.P. representing the prosecution in this regard.

I have also perused the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Prabhas Mandal vs. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6957, wherein in para Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the High Court of Kerala observed as under:

“6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the contraband seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. The offence alleged is under Section 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act. In such circumstances, the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. No criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody from 15.11.2024 onwards. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But I make it clear that, if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail, and if such an application is filed, the Jurisdictional Court is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, even though this order is passed by this Court.

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 16 Scale 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art. 21 of our Constitution.”

(underline supplied)

In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

“53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.”

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions.”

The charge of this case is not yet been framed by the Learned Special Judge.

However, considering the materials on record it appears to this Court that the contraband items seized from the possession of accused in custody comes under intermediate quantity. Situated thus, considering the period of incarceration of the accused in custody, the rigors of provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply against the present accused in custody in this case.

Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the accused in cusoty to go on interim bail till 27.11.2025 of her execution of bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court with a condition that till next date she shall appear before the Learned Trial Court once in a week and shall surrender before the Learned Trial Court on 27.11.2025. On the day of her surrender, the accused person may approach the Learned Trial Court for further extension of bail or regular bail which shall be within the domain of Learned Trial Court to consider i.d. the accused shall remain in J/C as before.

With this observation, the present bail application stands disposed of.

Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order. Return back the case diary to I.O. through Learned Addl. P.P. along with a copy of this order. Also a copy of this order be supplied to Learned Counsel for the accused person in custody for information and compliance.