Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 20.02.2026 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 20 February, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:92
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA. No. 5 of 2026
Date of Decision: 20.02.2026
Smti. Aisha Khatoon @ Pahari
W/o (L) Md. Amir Hussain of
Lower Paltan Bazar, Naspati
Ghari, Jhalupara, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
Presently lodged in District Prison
& Correctional Home at Shillong.
........ Petitioner
- Vs-
The State of Meghalaya
Represented by its Commissioner and
Secretary (Home), Shillong.
......... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Pandit, Adv.
Ms. S.D. Sangma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, GA.
Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1
2026:MLHC:92
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. S. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has
submitted that the petitioner herein has once again approached this Court with
a prayer for grant of bail, and earlier prayer being made was rejected by this
Court vide order dated 05.08.2025 passed in BA. No. 37 of 2025.
2. In due course, the petitioner/accused has again prayed for grant of
bail on the ground of changed circumstances, the said prayer was made before
the learned trial court in Bail Application No. 16 (H) 2026, but the same was
rejected vide order dated 09.02.2026.
3. Now, the petitioner/accused has approached this Court with this
instant bail application with a prayer for enlargement of bail on the ground
that, in course of proceedings before the trial court and from the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses who have since deposed before the trial court, it
transpired that the petitioner/accused has not committed any offence of
possession of contraband substance of a quantity more than the prescribed
small quantity, and even, if the petitioner/accused is to be punished for such
an offence, having been in custody for more than the prescribed period of
punishment for possession of contraband of small quantity, therefore, the
petitioner/accused is entitled to be released from custody.
4. In this regard, the learned counsel has led this Court to the evidence
2
2026:MLHC:92
of one of the prosecution witnesses namely, Smti. Nur Jahan Begum, who is
said to be the person who has informed the police at the initial stage of the
case that the petitioner/accused had kept or hidden certain amount of
contraband substance in her shop. However, in course of her evidence before
the court, the said witness has made a U-turn, and has deposed that she had
never made any such allegation or statement against the petitioner/accused.
This piece of evidence has justified the case of the petitioner/accused as far as
the allegation of her being in possession of the alleged contraband substance
of about 6.5 grams is concerned. On the basis of such changed circumstances,
the learned counsel has prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail with
any conditions fit to be imposed by this Court.
5. Per contra, Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the State
respondent, has submitted that this Court, in the first instance, when the first
bail application was preferred, that is, BA. No. 37 of 2025 (supra), the prayer
of the petitioner/accused herein was rejected, not necessarily on the
consideration of the alleged quantity of contraband substance said to be
possessed by the petitioner/accused, but on the ground of her involvement in
similar offence involving contraband substance, for which two other criminal
cases were instituted against her. Therefore, on consideration of her criminal
antecedent, this Court has rejected the prayer made then.
3
2026:MLHC:92
6. It is also the further submission of the learned GA that the
petitioner/accused, being aggrieved by the said order dated 05.08.2025 passed
in BA. No. 37 of 2025, has approached the Supreme Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 14126/2025, has rejected the petition, thereby upholding the
order of this Court. The Supreme Court has however directed the trial court to
expedite the trial. Under such circumstances, since there is no delay in the
trial, therefore, the prayer for grant of bail may not be allowed at this point of
time, submits the learned GA.
7. This Court has considered the submission made by the parties, and
is also made aware that the petitioner/accused herein is also in custody in
connection with another similar case involving offences under the NDPS Act,
and for which, trial is also proceeding in that case.
8. As to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
in view of the evidence tendered by the relevant witnesses, the
petitioner/accused, at most, is deemed to have been in possession of small
quantity of contraband substance, for which being in custody for the relevant
period of time, she ought to have been discharged from the case, this Court, is
of the considered view that the matter is sub judice since the final order of the
trial court has not been passed, as such, it could not be said that the
4
2026:MLHC:92
petitioner/accused will be found guilty or innocent at the end of the trial.
Therefore, this will not be a point of consideration as far as the prayer for bail
is concerned.
9. Be that as it may, on an appreciation of the facts and circumstances
involving the case of the petitioner, at this point of time, no ground for grant
of bail has been made out.
10. Petition is accordingly dismissed and stands disposed of.
11. Before parting, this Court would impress upon the trial court to
expedite the case of the petitioner/accused in view of the direction made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), perhaps, if possible, a day-to-day trial to
be conducted in this regard.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 5
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.02.20 17:35:46 IST
