Accused Person-In-Custody vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 230 Tri

Tripura High Court

Accused Person-In-Custody vs The State Of Tripura on 1 August, 2025

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                           B.A. No.51 of 2025
Harun Miah
S/O Tarab Ali
Resident of Khadya Khola, Ward No.1,
P.S.-Jatrapur,
Dist.-Sepahijala, Tripura
                                          ---- Accused Person-in-custody
                                 Versus
The State of Tripura
                                                      ----Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Adv, Mr. Arpan Jamatia, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      :      Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
                                 Order

01/08/2025

This bail application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS,

2023 for granting bail to the accused person namely Harun Miah

who is lodging in custody on and from 14.05.2025 in connection

with Jatrapur PS case No.10 of 2025 for the offence punishable

under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of NDPS Act.

Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Subrata Sarkar

assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Arpan Jamatia appearing on

behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Learned P.P. Mr.

Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel has

drawn the attention of this Court that in this case the mandatory

requirement of law (i.e. ground of arrest) was not communicated

to the accused and the arrest memo does not contain the said fact

as such in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in 2024 8 SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar vs. State of

Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269 and Pankaj

Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC

576, Learned Senior Counsel urged for releasing the accused on

bail in any condition.

On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of

the State-respondent submitted that herein in the case at hand

the alleged contraband item was directly recovered from the

residence of the accused and when the police raided his house,

that time, he fled away which means that knowing the fact that he

has possessed and concealed contraband items, he absconded.

Thereafter, on 14.05.2025 at about 10.45 hours at Tindepa

Chowmohany near Kathalia block, he was arrested by IO and on

the same day, he was produced before the Court, when on his

behalf, his engaged Learned Counsel filed bail application and on

that day, no such plea was taken by the accused that he was

unaware about the fact of his arrest in connection with this case.

Even on that day at the time of seizure of contraband items, his

family members were duly informed and the report of Tehsildar

also confirms about the residence of the accused from where the

contraband item was seized. So, at this stage, there is no scope to

grant bail to the accused on the plea that the ground of arrest was

not communicated to him. Learned P.P. also referred para No.22

of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2024)

7 SCC 599 in Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Directorate of

Enforcement and relying upon the same, Learned P.P. again

submitted that at this stage there is no scope to release the

accused on bail.

In this case, the prosecution was set into motion on the

basis of an FIR dated 10.03.2025 laid by SI Shubhankar Saha of

Jatrapur PS to O/C, Jatrapur PS alleging inter alia that on that day

at about 19.50 hours he received one secret information from a

reliable source that huge quantum of suspected contraband items

has been stored in the residence of one Harun Miah, S/O Tarab Ali

of Khadya khola, Ward No.1, PS-Jatrapur. Accordingly, he entered

the fact in GD and after that, the same was informed to the O/C,

PS. Requisition was sent to SDM, Sonamura to depute Govt.

official for witnessing the search and seizure. Tehsildar was also

informed. After that, at about 20.25 hours the informant along

with staff arrived at the house of accused Harun Miah at Jatrapur

but on seeing the police party, Harun Miah fled away. Thereafter,

he called the neighbour namely Manjil Hossain who was available

in his house. Thereafter in presence of said neighbour/Tehsildar he

acknowledged his identity before them and arranged for the pre-

search. After that, he also issued notice under Section 42 of NDPS

Act to Harun Miah but the notice could not be served as the

accused by this time fled away. Thereafter, he prepared pre-

search memo in presence of witnesses and conducted search in

the dwelling house of the accused Harun Miah in presence of said

Manjil Hossain. In course of search, after digging the soil in the

adjacent backside of the kitchen of Harun Miah recovered two blue

colour plastic drum which was packed with white colour plastic

polyethene and after opening the drum found 32 kg of dry ganja.

After that, the same was seized observing all formalities.

Threafter, on 14.05.2025 at about 10.45 hours he was arrested in

connection with this case and on the same day he was produced

and he was defended by his engaged Learned Counsel. However,

after hearing, his bail petition was rejected by the Learned Trial

Court.

It appears to this Court that in course of hearing,

Learned Senior Counsel only drawn the attention of the Court that

the ground of arrest was not communicated to the accused but did

not submit any other points of law to counter the prosecution

story. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears

that since the contraband item was directly recovered from the

residence of the accused and seeing the police party, he

absconded on 10.03.2025 so definitely it appears that his

neighbour and his family members were duly informed and in

presence of neighbour, the contraband item was seized. The

investigation of the case is in progress. In the forwarding report, it

was written that the ground of arrest is duly communicated to the

accused and to the family members and medical assistance was

accordingly provided to him.

So, after hearing both the sides and also after going

through the relevant prosecution papers, it appears to this Court

that since the contraband item was recovered from the residence

of the accused and he absconded at the time of seizure seeing the

police party, so, it cannot be said that he was not aware about the

prosecution case and he was duly defended by his engaged

Learned Counsel and to counter the prosecution case, the defence

could not raise any other substantial point showing innocence of

the accused. Furthermore, in course of hearing, Learned defence

Counsel failed to satisfy the Court that the rigour of provision of

Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply in this case. So, the

submission of Learned Senior Counsel for the accused cannot be

accepted at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application filed

stands rejected. The accused is to remain in J/C as before.

With this observation, this bail application stands

disposed of.

Send down the record of Learned Trial Court along with

a copy of this order.

Return back the Case Diary to IO through Learned P.P.

along with a copy of this order.

                                                                          JUDGE




MOUMITA      Digitally signed by MOUMITA
             DATTA

DATTA        Date: 2025.08.02 12:26:29
             -07'00'

Deepshikha