The case originated from an incident on March 4, 2016, when the police, acting on information, intercepted a WagonR car and seized 38.200 kgs of Ganja. Five individuals were present in the vehicle, identified as three men and two women named Seema and Preeti. Subsequently, an arrest memo was prepared, naming one of the women as Seema Choudhari, and her age was recorded as 17 years, leading to her initial production before the Juvenile Justice Board.

During the proceedings, a bail application filed by the appellant led to an order dated September 6, 2016, wherein the Special Judge, based on a summary inquiry and documents like an Aadhar card, concluded that Seema Choudhari and Shikha Barman were the same person, and consequently rejected the bail.

The prosecution relied on police statements and the findings of the bail order, asserting that the order, based on documents like the Aadhar card and unchallenged by the appellant, had attained finality.

The First Information Report (FIR) clearly mentioned "Seema, daughter of Mohan Choudhari" as one of the occupants of the car.

None of the documents presented along with the charge sheet mentioned K. Shikha Barman as an accused.

Significantly, PW-5 admitted in her cross-examination that the initial information received did not mention Shikha Barman, and the police diary also recorded the names of the women as Seema Choudhary and Preeti Choudhary. She further acknowledged that no woman named Shikha Barman was found in the vehicle during the search, and the search panchnama did not bear the signature or thumb impression of Shikha Barman.

Based on these observations, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, K. Shikha Barman, was the same person as Seema Choudhari who was found in possession of the contraband in the WagonR car. The court explicitly stated that the order on the bail application, based on a summary inquiry, could not be treated as a final adjudication on the identity of the accused, especially in the absence of oral evidence at that stage.

This judgment underscores the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused, including their identity, beyond a reasonable doubt through credible evidence presented during the trial. Reliance on preliminary findings from bail proceedings, without substantive evidence during the final hearing, cannot sustain a conviction. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulous investigation and accurate identification of the accused at every stage of the legal process.