In the courts of Tripura, a case involving eighty-two kilograms of seized marijuana has become something larger than the fate of one accused man — it has become a mirror held up to a system. The Tripura High Court, finding that a trial judge had closed prosecution evidence without hearing a single witness, set aside the acquittal of Golom Rabban Ali and ordered the matter tried again. Behind this single reversal lies a more unsettling question: why had the same court acquitted defendants in roughly one hundred and fifty drug cases within a compressed span of time, and what does that pattern sa
Tripura High Court Orders Fresh Trial in 82kg Ganja Case Amid Concerns Over 150 Acquittals
One hundred fifty acquittals in a short span raised serious concerns
Mark
So the high court threw out an acquittal because the prosecution didn't get to present its case. But why didn't they just reschedule the trial?
Mimi
The trial court closed the prosecution's evidence without ever hearing a witness. The witnesses were on election duty—they had official obligations—but instead of waiting or rescheduling, the judge just shut it down. The high court said that was a violation of basic procedure, especially in a drug case with eighty-two kilograms of contraband.
Luke
But we should be careful here. We know the witnesses didn't show up. We know the judge closed the case. What we don't know is whether the judge had a reason—whether there was a backlog, whether the witnesses kept not showing up, whether there was a pattern of delay. The high court's order doesn't tell us that.
Mark
And then there's this thing about one hundred and fifty acquittals.
Mimi
Right. The public prosecutor told the high court that around one hundred and fifty cases had been decided by that same trial court in a short span, and all of them resulted in acquittal. That's unusual enough that it raised red flags.
Luke
But here's the thing—we don't know what those cases were. Were they all drug cases? Were they all weak cases? Were they cases where witnesses also didn't show up? The high court flagged the pattern, but the reporting doesn't tell us whether the pattern actually means something is wrong, or whether it's just a coincidence.
Mark
The prosecutor resigned.
Mimi
He did. When the state asked him about it, he resigned. The state said they had serious doubts about his integrity.
Luke
But we don't know why he resigned. Was it because he knew he'd done something wrong? Was it because he was tired of being questioned? Was it because the state was going to fire him anyway? Resignation can mean a lot of things.
Mark
So what happens now?
Mimi
The case goes back to the trial court. The prosecution gets to present its witnesses this time. The trial should happen quickly. And the accused can apply for bail while he waits.
Luke
And the one hundred and fifty other cases?
Mimi
That's the open question. The high court flagged it, but there's no indication yet of what will happen with those.
El Pulso
- A man found with 82 kg of marijuana walked free after a trial court shut down the prosecution's case before a single witness could testify — a procedural failure the High Court found indefensible.
- Witnesses absent on key dates due to election duty were used as justification to permanently close the prosecution's evidence, rather than as reason to reschedule — a distinction the High Court treated as critical.
- The revelation that the same trial court produced approximately 150 acquittals in a short period sent a shockwave through the proceedings, prompting the public prosecutor who handled those cases to resign under a cloud of doubt.
- The High Court has ordered a fresh trial, requiring the accused to surrender by March 31, 2026, and signaling that the state's highest bench will be watching how drug prosecutions unfold in Tripura going forward.
In the courts of Tripura, a case involving eighty-two kilograms of seized marijuana has become something larger than the fate of one accused man — it has become a mirror held up to a system. The Tripura High Court, finding that a trial judge had closed prosecution evidence without hearing a single witness, set aside the acquittal of Golom Rabban Ali and ordered the matter tried again. Behind this single reversal lies a more unsettling question: why had the same court acquitted defendants in roughly one hundred and fifty drug cases within a compressed span of time, and what does that pattern say about the integrity of justice in the region?
In August 2023, police in Tripura raided a house on a tip and discovered eighty-two kilograms of dried marijuana packed into plastic drums. The occupant, Golom Rabban Ali, was arrested and charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case appeared straightforward. It would not remain so.
When the trial commenced before a special judge in Sepahijala district, the prosecution's witnesses failed to appear on scheduled dates — some were occupied with election duty, others with official obligations. Rather than grant additional time, the trial court closed the prosecution's evidence entirely, without hearing a single witness. In June 2024, Golom Rabban Ali was acquitted. The state appealed.
When the Tripura High Court examined the matter in March 2026, Justices T Amarnath Goud and S Datta Purkayastha found more than a procedural error — they found a pattern. The public prosecutor flagged that approximately one hundred and fifty cases had passed through that same trial court in a short period, each ending in acquittal. The prosecutor who had handled those matters resigned when questioned. The state expressed serious doubts about his conduct.
The High Court ruled that in a case involving a commercial quantity of contraband under federal drug law, the prosecution was entitled to a genuine opportunity to present its evidence. Witness unavailability on certain dates did not justify closing the case permanently. The acquittal was set aside, a fresh trial ordered, and the accused directed to surrender by March 31, 2026, with the option to seek bail.
The one hundred and fifty acquittals now hang over the proceedings as an unanswered question — whether the failure was one of negligence, incompetence, or something more deliberate remains to be seen. But the pattern has drawn the attention of Tripura's highest court, and the retrial will be watched not only for what it reveals about one man's guilt or innocence, but for what it might force the system to confront about itself.
On a humid afternoon in August 2023, police in Tripura acting on a tip knocked on the door of a house and found eighty-two kilograms of dried marijuana packed into plastic drums. They seized the contraband, arrested the occupant—a man named Golom Rabban Ali—and filed charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case seemed straightforward. It was not.
When the trial began before a special judge in Sepahijala district, the prosecution lined up witnesses to testify about the search, the seizure, the chain of custody. But as the trial dates arrived, the witnesses did not. Some were working election duty. Others had official obligations. The trial court, rather than wait or reschedule, simply closed the prosecution's case without hearing a single witness. In June 2024, the judge acquitted Golom Rabban Ali. No evidence had been presented. The state appealed.
When the Tripura High Court took up the case in March 2026, Justices T Amarnath Goud and S Datta Purkayastha found something troubling in the record. The public prosecutor, R Datta, had flagged a pattern: around one hundred and fifty cases had moved through that same trial court in a compressed timeframe, and every single one had ended in acquittal. When questioned about this anomaly, the prosecutor who had handled those matters resigned. The state, the high court noted, had serious doubts about his integrity.
The judges concluded that the trial court had violated basic procedure. In a case involving a commercial quantity of contraband under federal drug law, the prosecution deserved a reasonable chance to present its evidence. Witnesses being unavailable on certain dates was not grounds to shut down the case without ever hearing them. The acquittal was set aside. The case would go back to the trial court for a fresh trial, with the prosecution given a genuine opportunity to call its witnesses and make its case. The accused was ordered to surrender by March 31, 2026, though he could apply for bail.
What the high court's order exposed was a systemic problem. One hundred and fifty acquittals in a short span suggested something was broken in how drug cases were being tried in Tripura. Whether it was negligence, incompetence, or something darker remained unclear. But the pattern was undeniable, and it had caught the attention of the state's highest court. The fresh trial would be watched closely—not just for what it revealed about Golom Rabban Ali's guilt or innocence, but for what it might tell the system about itself.
Citas Notables
The trial court committed a serious error in closing the prosecution's evidence without granting a reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to produce the witnesses.— Public Prosecutor R Datta, cited in high court order
In a case involving serious allegations under the NDPS Act and recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, the prosecution should have been given a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence.— Tripura High Court, March 11 order
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en The Indian Express ↗
Crime & Justice