Manipur High Court: The Single Judge Bench of A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., granted bail to the petitioner-accused who had served three and a half years of custody for offences under Sections 21(c), 29 and 60(3), NDPS Act. The Court after being satisfied on the twin test of Section 37 of the Act, held that the statutory presumption under Section 35 is rebuttable. The Court noted that the applicant had no previous similar criminal involvement and the trial had not made substantial progress. It emphasised that long custody alone is insufficient, unless the statutory threshold under Section 37, NDPS Act is met.
Background
The case arose from an incident dated 16 December 2022, when a vehicle driven by the main accused being accompanied by two passengers, petitioner and passenger 2, was checked by the personnel of the 20th Assam Rifles while conducting routine checking. They allegedly recovered 49 packets of brown sugar weighing approximately 2.163 kg, including the packing material from the vehicle. The substance was allegedly concealed inside the seat of a white Mahindra Bolero. During the checking, the driver allegedly went to the toilet and escaped into a nearby dense jungle. The two passengers were thereafter arrested by the Assam Rifles personnel and the seized articles were handed over to the Tengnoupal Police Station. On the same day, the FIR was registered under Sections 21(c), 29 and 60(3), NDPS Act. The petitioner and the passenger 2 were subsequently remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody.
Investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Special Court. The petitioner had previously approached the Special Judge seeking bail, but his application was rejected on 28 December 2023, on the ground that commercial quantity of narcotic substance had been recovered from the vehicle in which the petitioner and the co-accused were travelling. Aggrieved by the prolonged incarceration, the petitioner applied for regular bail under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 37, NDPS Act. The petitioner argued that he was merely a passenger and had taken a lift from main accused, who was the driver and owner of the vehicle. There was no material connecting him either with the vehicle or with the seized narcotic substance. It was submitted that the main accused, had escaped from the spot and that the petitioner and the passenger 2 were arrested despite the absence of material showing their conscious possession of the contraband.
The petitioner further contended that the statutory presumption concerning culpable mental state under Section 35, NDPS Act could not automatically operate against him. There was no credible material establishing conscious possession or ownership of the narcotic substance. The petitioner also raised alleged violations of Sections 50 and 57, NDPS Act, contending that the stringent requirements of Section 37 should not prevent his release without the material directly linking him to the seized contraband. The petitioner referring to the case of Harshal Desai v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 413, stated that he had remained in custody continuously since 16 December 2022, amounting to more than three and a half years, hence, be considered for bail. It was argued that the trial had progressed very slowly and that there was no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future. The petitioner relying on the case Ngangom Somorendro Singh v. Officer-in-Charge, 2022 SCC OnLine Mani 431, asserted that he was a first-time offender and had no previous involvement in similar criminal cases.
The respondent-State submitted that the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity and, therefore, Section 37, NDPS Act imposed a statutory restriction on the grant of bail. It stated that the Court was required to satisfy the twin test that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It was further contended that since the contraband had been recovered from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling, the statutory presumption relating to conscious possession was attracted.
Decision and Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework as well as the decisions relied by the parties. The Court specified that, in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the twin test contained in Section 37 remains mandatory. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh, 2026 SCC Online SC 1058, and observed that the requirements of Section 37 had to be satisfied even where bail was sought on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial. The Court also relied upon its recent decision in Lunkhogin Kipgen v. Narcotics & Affairs of Border, 2026 SCC OnLine Mani 483 , wherein it had held that long incarceration by itself could not dispense with the statutory requirements of Section 37. It emphasized that the constitutional concern regarding personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had to be considered consistently with the binding legal position governing commercial quantity offences under the NDPS Act.
The Court considered that the petitioner had remained incarcerated for more than three and a half years. The trial had proceeded at a slow pace and had not made substantial progress. The Court noted that the petitioner was a first-time offender with no previous involvement in similar cases. Apart from the fact that he was travelling in the vehicle from which the narcotic substance was recovered, the charge-sheet did not contain other credible incriminating material connecting him with the contraband. The Court also noted that there was no material indicating that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle. The Court observed that the case against the petitioner substantially rested upon the statutory presumption under Section 35, NDPS Act. The Court noted that such presumption is rebuttable and in the circumstances of the case, the absence of additional material connecting the petitioner with the narcotic substance assumed significance at the stage of bail.
The Court concluded that the petitioner satisfied the twin requirements of Section 37, NDPS Act. The Court therefore allowed the bail application and directed the petitioner’s release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with a surety, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (NDPS), Chandel, Manipur, Chandel on the following conditions:
-
He shall appear before the Court on every date fixed by the Court or as directed by the Court from time to time.
-
He shall not try to influence any persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.
-
He shall not temper with any materials/evidence of the case.
-
He shall not leave the State of Manipur without the leave of the Special Judge, (ND&PS), Chandel, Manipur.
-
The passport, if any, of the petitioner shall be surrendered before the Special Judge, (ND&PS), Chandel, Manipur.
-
On violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the State respondent is free to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined exclusively to the disposal of the bail application. The Court expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the alleged involvement of the petitioner, or the ultimate outcome of the trial. The trial court was left free to independently assess the evidence and form its own conclusions in accordance with law.
[Seiminthang Mate v. State of Manipur, Bail Appln. No. 5 of 2024, decided on 10-9-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Osbert Khaling, Advocate
For the Respondent: Y. Ashang, P.P., R.K. Emily, Dy. GA
