AGARTALA, Dec. 11 - Inside a packed courtroom at the Tripura High Court, Justice S. Datta Purkayastha delivered an order that many lawyers whispered had been “a very closely watched bail hearing.” Five Bihar residents-three women and two men-secured bail after the court found major gaps in the prosecution’s attempt to prove they were acting together to transport contraband. The hearing, which stretched with intense back-and-forth arguments, ended with the judge allowing all five applications.
Background
The case dates back to July 13, 2025, when a police team on vehicle-checking duty at Trishabari reportedly noticed five passengers hurriedly getting down from a vehicle near Teliamura Railway Station. Their sudden halt on spotting the police raised suspicion. A cordon was set up, an Executive Magistrate was called, and eventually 32 kg of ganja-packed with brown adhesive tape-was recovered from their individual bags.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds 10-Year Jail Term for Tamil Nadu Woman in 23.5 kg Ganja Case
Each accused allegedly carried an “intermediate quantity” ranging from 3.5 kg to nearly 13 kg. Prosecution tried to argue that since they were travelling together, the total quantity should be treated as “commercial,” attracting harsher bail conditions under the NDPS Act. But the defence insisted this was “a wrong and unfair clubbing of numbers.”
Court’s Observations
During the arguments, the defence stressed that there was no proof the five accused shared a common plan. Citing Supreme Court rulings, counsel argued that simply being present together or walking side-by-side does not establish conspiracy.
The prosecution countered that the group had travelled from Bihar together and were heading out together, revealing a coordinated effort. But when the judge examined the case diary, several weaknesses stood out. The police, he noted, had not checked where the accused boarded the vehicle, had not examined the driver, and had no material to confirm their travel or stay in Tripura.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies COVID Doctor Insurance: Broad Requisition Interpretation Revives Hope
“The bench observed, ‘The investigation does not clearly establish meeting of minds among the accused. Ingredients of Section 29 NDPS appear missing at this stage,’” referencing the law dealing with criminal conspiracy.
The order also referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions where the court refused to infer conspiracy merely because accused persons happened to be together. In simple terms, the judge explained that suspicion cannot replace proof-especially when heavy penalties are involved.
Read also:- Supreme Court Overrules Earlier Verdict, Says Public Premises Act Prevails Over All State Rent Laws
Decision
Finding the investigation “deficient” on crucial aspects and noting that each accused possessed only intermediate quantities, the High Court granted bail to all five-Rupa Devi, Ruchi Kumari, Laxmi Devi, Pinki Devi, and Ranjit Kumar Shahani. Each must furnish a ₹1 lakh bond and follow strict conditions: they cannot leave the Special Judge’s jurisdiction without permission, must report their local address within 15 days, and must not influence witnesses.
With that, Justice Purkayastha disposed of all bail applications, clarifying that these observations are limited only to bail and will not affect the upcoming trial.
Case Title: Sri Dilip Kumar Sahani & Others vs. State of Tripura
Case Type: Bail Applications under NDPS Act
Case Numbers:
B.A. No.107 of 2025
B.A. No.108 of 2025
B.A. No.109 of 2025
B.A. No.110 of 2025
B.A. No.111 of 2025
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 December 2025
