SHILLONG, India, March 23 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment on Feb. 20:

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 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv4CYMrHyTPSjRYil%2BXLmDJWQJSO7Rr34pJO%2FKoEiu6bI&caseno=BA/5/2026&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010001392026&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.