Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 02.04.2026 vs Union Of India on 2 April, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:298
Serial No. 03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA. No. 12 of 2026
Date of Decision: 02.04.2026
Shri. Rana Marak
S/o Shri Rojot Marak
R/o Upper Rajapara,
South West Khasi Hills
Shillong, Meghalaya.
(Brother of accused Shri. Ferdinand M. Marak)
........ Petitioner
- Vs-
1. Union Of India,
Represented by NCB (Narcotics Bureau),
Guwahati.
......... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. P. Chettri, Adv.
Mr. H. Miah, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. I. Singh, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1
2026:MLHC:298
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, with a prayer for
grant of bail on behalf of Shri. Ferdinand M. Marak who has been remanded
to judicial custody on the strength of an order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the
Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai,
in Crl. NDPS Case No. 1 of 2026.
2. Heard Ms. P. Chettri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has
submitted that, it has come to the knowledge of the accused person in question
who is the brother of the petitioner herein that on 31.07.2025, personnel of the
Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), apparently, on receipt of specific
information about trafficking of substantial quantity of contraband substance,
had intercepted one vehicle (Sumo), and after conducting a search, has
affected a seizure of 1.957 Kgs of methamphetamine tablets from the
conscious possessions of two persons namely, Smti. Terina Sangma and Shri.
Shankar Sangma. Accordingly, on legal formalities being followed, the two
persons were arrested on 31.07.2025 itself.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel that on a criminal case
being registered, investigation was carried out, and the Investigating Officer
(I/O) has then filed the charge sheet on 29.01.2026.
2
2026:MLHC:298
4. The learned counsel has also submitted that the accused brother of
the petitioner herein is not connected or not involved with the said case and
has also not received any summons or notices from the police or from the
court. However, he was surprised to receive a phone call in the month of
February from the Dangar Police Outpost that the Bailable Warrant of Arrest
(BWA) has been issued in his name by the Special Judge (NDPS) Jowai. The
accused has then appeared before the Dangar Police Outpost and has forfeited
the bail amount which was set at ₹ 10,000/-. He was further directed to appear
before the said court on 12.03.2026.
5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, in the
meantime, an application for recall of the said BWA has also been filed before
the concerned court. When the accused appeared before the court on
12.03.2026 along with his counsel and has also informed the court that the
bail amount has been forfeited, he was informed that the application for recall
of the warrant stands infructuous. However, the learned counsel for the
accused person has made a prayer for time to file a bail application which was
allowed.
6. Though the said bail application was filed in course of the day,
however, the same was not taken up and instead, the learned Trial Judge had
passed an order remanding the accused person in question to 14 days judicial
3
2026:MLHC:298
custody and has fixed the date for his production on 27.03.2026.
7. The learned counsel has reiterated that the accused person in
question is not at all involved in the case, and being a student with the prospect
of pursuing a career in the Paramilitary Force, therefore, his illegal detention
would cause prejudice to him, apart from the fact that he has no criminal
antecedents. It is therefore, a fit case for his release on bail with any conditions
that this Court may impose.
8. Mr. I. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/NCB in his
response, has submitted that the accused person in question is very much
involved in the case, since his name has figured in the charge sheet, his
complicity being that he has been shown to be the financer of the said illegal
transaction for the procurement and transportation of the seized contraband
substance. This fact has turned up during investigation when monetary
transactions had been established between the accused person herein and
another co-accused person, Shri. Shankar Sangma. The fact that this accused
person has also been named as an absconder, has also been reflected in the
records. Therefore, the court has issued a number of summonses to compel
him to appear before the court and finally a Bailable Warrant of Arrest was
issued.
9. The learned counsel has also submitted that on 12.03.2026, the
4
2026:MLHC:298
learned counsel for the accused had made a prayer before the court to file a
bail application, but the same was only filed in the second half of the court’s
hour. The court has therefore taken up the matter on 24.03.2026. On this date
too, though the hearing on the bail application was deferred to the next date
as the counsel for the prosecution was indisposed, however, because of the
absence of the counsel for the accused, the bail application was disposed of
on default.
10. The learned counsel has also submitted that the offences involved
are non-bailable, that is one under Section 8(c), punishable under Section
22(c), 28, 29, 35, and 54 of the NDPS Act, has also attracted the provision of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is therefore incumbent upon the accused to file
a regular bail application before the court, which application will be heard in
the presence of the prosecutor. However, since the said bail application has
only been disposed of on default, the order of the court remanding the accused
to judicial custody, is therefore valid.
11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the accused person has received copy of the charge sheet, however, the name
of the accused person in question is not found in the said charge sheet. Even
otherwise, since the accused person has not been earlier arrested or had been
arrested and was enlarged on bail, therefore, as has been observed in the case
5
2026:MLHC:298
of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr,
(2022) 10 SCC 51, at para 89, under such circumstances there is no need for
further arrest at the instant of the court.
12. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 88 Cr.P.C, which
provides that a person who was issued with a warrant on being present before
the court concerned, he may be required to execute a bond for his appearance
in such court which was done so, by the accused person in question. However,
the learned Trial Court, instead of acknowledging the bond duly executed, had
remanded him to judicial custody.
13. This Court on consideration of the submission made by the parties,
is made to understand that the crux of the matter as far as the case of the
accused person in question is concerned, is that, though, a Bailable Warrant
of Arrest have been issued against him, requiring his presence in court, after
complying with the legal formalities, that is, firstly appearing before the
Police Outpost at Dangar and being made to execute a bond, thereby
discharging the said warrant issued against him, on being directed to appear
before the court which he has done so on 12.03.2026, the court being aware
of the execution of such bond before the police and also being satisfied that
the accused had appeared before the court, had instead remanded him to
judicial custody.
6
2026:MLHC:298
14. The fact that the accused person had appeared before the court,
such act is consistent with the provision of Section 91 BNSS, which reads as
follows:
“91. When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer
presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or
warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such
person to execute a bond or bail bond for his appearance in such
Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for
trial.”
15. The Trial Court on being satisfied with the bonafide of the accused
could have accepted such submission and should have directed the accused to
appear on the next date for taking part in the proceedings. However, from the
records, particularly on perusal of the said order dated 12.03.2026, it is seen
that it is the accused person through his counsel who has sought for filing of
a regular bail application. The court on allowing such prayer, such petition
was filed, however, the hearing on the same could not be taken up on that day
and the next date fixed was 24.03.2026. On 24.03.2026, the said application
has been disposed of on default, meaning that the same has not been pressed
by the petitioner therein.
16. As to the contention that the name of the accused person in
question is not found in the charge sheet, the learned counsel for the
respondent/NCB has contended that the said charge sheet produced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not the complete charge sheet. Whereas,
7
2026:MLHC:298
in the final charge sheet, the name of the accused person in question has
appeared as one of the accused persons who has been charge sheeted. This
Court will not be in a position to clarify such dispute. It would be better for
the accused person to confirm such facts from the Trial Court records.
17. Under such circumstances, since the court has already remanded
the accused person to judicial custody, a judicial order having been passed, it
would be the proper course of action for the accused person to file an
appropriate application for grant of bail before such court.
18. Accordingly, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case of the accused person in question, the prayer made in this petition cannot
be entertained at this juncture.
19. This petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of in the light
of the above observations. It is made clear that the merits of the case of the
parties have not been gone into.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 8
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.04.02 20:10:33 IST
