06.05.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya on 6 May, 2026

Meghalaya High Court

Date Of Decision: 06.05.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya on 6 May, 2026

Author: W. Diengdoh

Bench: W. Diengdoh

                                                             2026:MLHC:427



Serial No. 01
Supplementary List

                     HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                            AT SHILLONG

BA. No. 24 of 2026
                                                Date of Decision: 06.05.2026
Smti. Laxmi Devi
W/o Shri. Ravi Kumar Gupta
R/o Ward No 24 Chhoti Badalpur, Patna
Bihar,
Presently residing at Rilbong,
Near Shillong Times office,
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong,
Meghalaya-793002.

                                                        .... Petitioner
                                   Vs.

1. State of Meghalaya,
   Represented by the Secretary and Commissioner,
   Home Police Department, Government of, Meghalaya.

2. The Superintendent of Police,
   Lumshnong, Khliehriat,
   East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
                                                       .... Respondents
Coram:
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
i)     Whether approved for reporting in                Yes/No
       Law journals etc.:

ii)  Whether approved for publication
     in press:                                          Yes/No
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Pandey, Adv. with
                                  Ms. B. Lyngdoh, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)           : Mr. R. Gurung, GA


                                         1
                                                                  2026:MLHC:427




                                   Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP.
                                   Mr. S.A. Sheikh, GA.


                    JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. This is an application made under Section 483 BNSS read with

Section 37 NDPS made by the petitioner herein with a prayer for grant of bail

on behalf of her husband, Shri Ravi Kumar Gupta, who was arrested on

23.08.2025 in connection with Lumshnong P.S Case No. 16 (8) 2025, under

Section 8(c)/21(b)/27A and 29 NDPS Act.

2. Heard Mr. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has

submitted that on 22.08.2025, an FIR was lodged before the In-charge, Umkiang

Police Patrol Post, East Jaintia Hills District by S.I. Rajesh Das, wherein, it was

stated that on receipt of credible information that one drug peddler by the name

Shri. Niku Roy was travelling from Assam towards Shillong, the vehicle that is,

one Tata Sumo No. ML05-J-0381 in which he was travelling, was intercepted at

a check post set up for the same, which is located in front of Umkiang Police

Patrol Post on the NH-6. On a search being conducted, from the luggage of the

said Niku Roy are found a soup boxes containing yellow/orange colour powder

suspected to be heroin. On test being conducted, it was confirmed that it was

indeed heroin, the same weighing about 23.91 grams.

2

2026:MLHC:427

3. Accordingly, Shri. Niku Roy was arrested and during the period of

questioning him, he has revealed that the accused/husband of the petitioner has

provided money and resources to support the said trade. On this revelation, the

authorities have also arrested the accused/husband of the petitioner, submits the

learned counsel.

4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is no

proof whatsoever that the accused person in question is involved in the said case,

though the primary allegation against him is that he is involved in the financing

of the said transaction, the alleged findings of the Investigating Officer (I/O) that

the accused/husband of the petitioner had deposited an amount of ₹1,15,000/-

(Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand) only, through ATM situated at Laban junction

to one person namely, Md. Salim Uddin of Panighat Village, Karimganj in

Assam, even, if such deposit is a fact, the same cannot be linked to the alleged

purchase of the seized contraband substance nor could such transaction be linked

to the co-accused, that is, Shri Niku Roy. Therefore, in such circumstances, the

accused/ husband of the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged and may

be released on bail with any conditions that this Court may deem fit to imposed.

5. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is mostly on grounds of technical default as far as the process of

arrest of the accused/husband of the petitioner is concerned. In this regard, the

3
2026:MLHC:427

learned counsel has submitted that at the time when he was arrested, the

accused/husband of the petitioner was served or intimated of the grounds of

arrest. Leading this Court to Annexure-II, at page 79 of this petition which is the

copy of such intimation, the learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of the

same, would show that it is a pre-arranged format or template, wherein is listed

a number of entries, as supposed grounds of arrest, most of which are not

relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case of the accused/husband of the

petitioner and what has been tick marked, said to be applicable to the accused

herein is the alleged ground that he has been suspected of being involved in

cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extent to

more that 7(seven) years. However, there is no detailed information of the

reasons he was actually arrested for. Therefore, without any clear intimation of

the grounds of his arrest, the same also not provided in writing in a language

understood by the accused herein, there has been a clear violation of the

provision of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

6. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA, while opposing the submission and

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the

contention that the accused/husband of the petitioner could not have been

impleaded in the case merely on the statement of co-witness is not correct since

records would reveal that on the basis of the statement of the co-accused (Niku

4
2026:MLHC:427

Roy) about the involvement of the accused/husband of the petitioner, this has led

to the discovery of the fact that the accused/husband of the petitioner has

financed the transaction, investigation having revealed that he along with the co-

accused were found entering an ATM on 17.08.2025 situated at Laban, Shillong.

The said accused person were seen depositing cash at the said ATM, such money

being the resources to support the said illegal trade. As such, the provision of

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, being attracted. In such a situation,

the complicity of the accused/husband of the petitioner cannot be ruled out,

submits the learned GA.

7. As to the contention that the accused/husband of the petitioner has

not been intimated of the grounds of arrest, the learned GA has submitted that

this cannot be a ground for grant of bail, inasmuch as, the accused person, apart

from having been intimated of the grounds of arrest, he is very much aware of

such facts, since copy of the charge sheet had been handed over to him, also the

fact that he has made several applications for grant of bail, he is aware of the

provisions of the offence alleged against him. Thus, no prejudice has been caused

to him.

8. In support of this contention the learned GA, has referred to the case

of Shri. Ronaldo Khongwir v. State of Meghalaya, wherein vide order dated

26.02.2026, in BA No. 6 of 2026, this Court, at para 13 of the same relying in

5
2026:MLHC:427

the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri. Darshan 2025 SCC Online 1702, has

held that records showing that the accused person therein has received copy of

such intimation when the same has been addressed to him, and also that no

prejudice would be caused to him at that particular stage of the proceedings, has

rejected the prayer made therein. In this present case, the accused/husband of the

petitioner has also received copy of such intimation of grounds of arrest on

23.08.2025, therefore, it cannot be said that he is prejudiced by the same. This

petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be rejected, further submits

the learned GA.

9. This Court has given considerable thought to the submission of the

learned counsels for the parties. The case against the accused/husband of the

petitioner is primarily one under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, that is, that he is

involved in the financing of the transaction of contraband substance (heroin),

wherein he and his accomplice were found to have deposited cash at an ATM on

17.08.2025.

10. From the charge sheet, it is seen that the I/O has noted his observation

that the accused person has deposited this cash which amounts to ₹1,15,000/-

(Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand) only, through the said ATM, the same being

done so into the account of Md. Salim Uddin. There is nothing shown in the

investigation process about the involvement of the said Md. Salim Uddin as far

6
2026:MLHC:427

as the case of the accused persons is concerned. There is also no concrete

evidence in whatever form to prove that such money deposited was for financing

of the said illegal transaction. Though, it would be incumbent upon the

prosecution to adduce cogent and substantial evidence to make out their case in

course of trial, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable

grounds for believing that the accused/husband of the petitioner is not guilty of

the offence alleged, this being solely for the purpose of satisfaction of the

provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

11. As to the reliance of the learned GA on the applicability of the

provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it need not be reminded that

eventually, the statement of a co-accused would not merit substantive evidence

against another co-accused at the trial, which is the case herein.

12. Without proceeding further on the other grounds of contention raised,

that is, on the issue of whether there was proper or improper intimation of the

grounds of arrest upon the accused/husband of the petitioner and the case laws

cited by the rival counsels for the parties, which would be irrelevant to discuss

herein, suffice it to say that having come to a decision that the accused husband

of the petitioner is prima facie not involved in the case, dwelling at length on

this issue, would be academic and a futile exercise. At this stage, as far as the

prayer for bail is concerned, the same has to be considered.

7

2026:MLHC:427

13. Accordingly, the prayer made in this petition is allowed. The

accused/husband of the petitioner is to be released on bail forthwith on the

following conditions:

i) That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence or

witnesses;

ii) That he shall attend court as and when called for;

iii) That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Meghalaya, except

with due permission of the court concerned; and

iv) That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand) with two local sureties of like amount

to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

14. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly. No

costs.

Judge

Signature Not Verified 8
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.05.06 19:03:49 IST