Tripura High Court
Smt. Jaya Rani Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 28 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A. No.70 of 2025
Smt. Jaya Rani Debbarma, (Aged 32 years)
W/O Shri Bishu Kumar Tripura
Resident of Rampadapara (Larmai),
P.S.- Melaghar, District - Sepahijala Tripura,
PIN No.-799103.
.... Petitioner on behalf of
Custody Accused Person
And
Shri Bishu Kumar Tripura, (Aged 62 years)
S/O- Shri Malindra Kumar Tripura
Resident of Rampadapara (Larmai),
P.S.- Melaghar, District- Sepahijala Tripura,
PIN No.-799103.
.... Custody Accused Person
Versus
The State of Tripura
(Represented by the Secretary, Home Department),
Government of Tripura, Agartala
.......Respondent.
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Janardhan Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Subhradip Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
28/08/2025
This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
corresponding to Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is filed for granting bail to
the accused-in-custody namely Bishu Kumar Tripura who is
lodging in jail in connection with Melaghar P.S. Case
No.2025/MLG/002 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act,
1985 corresponding to Case No.Special NDPS 42 of 2025 pending
before the Court of Learned Special Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura.
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Janardhan Bhattacharjee along
with Learned Counsel, Mr. Subhradip Sharma appearing on behalf
of the accused person in custody and also heard Learned P.P., Mr.
Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
As ordered earlier Learned P.P. has produced the CD today
also by this time we have received the record from Learned Trial
Court.
Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. J.
Bhattacharjee appearing for the applicant first of all drawn the
attention of the Court that before the Trial Court bail petition was
moved on behalf of the accused narrating some serious lapses on
the part of the prosecution that no "grounds of arrest" was
communicated to the accused-in-custody in writing at the time of
his forwarding before the court.
Furthermore, Learned Counsel for the applicant also drawn
the attention of the Court referring Annexure-2 i.e. the arrest
memo wherein in column No.10 the "grounds of arrest" has been
mechanically shown and furthermore Learned Counsel again
drawn the attention of the Court that on 14.05.2025 from the
order of Learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Sepahijala District,
Sonamura it will be crystal clear that no "grounds of arrest" was
communicated to the accused in writing at the time of his
forwarding before the Court which violates Article 21 and Article
22 of the Constitution of India and in view of the judgment of this
High Court and also the authoritative judgments of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, the accused deserves to be released on bail in
any condition.
It was further submitted that after obtaining certified copy it
was found that one "intimation of arrest" was given to the accused
which cannot be termed as "grounds of arrest" because the same
violates the directions of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in number of cases and the same also does not contain any
date and time of arrest.
Further, Learned Counsel, Mr. J. Bhattacharjee again
submitted that even if it is accepted that the intimation regarding
"grounds of arrest" is correct but on perusal of the same it
appears that in the said communication the I/O has mentioned the
date as 08.04.2025 when the accused himself was arrested on
13.05.2025 by ED and thereafter he was handed over to police.
There was no clear explanation in this regard from the side of the
prosecution.
Learned Counsel, Mr. J. Bhattacharjee further submitted that
although from the order dated 24.07.2025 of the Learned Trial
Court it will be found that Learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985
Sepahijala District, Sonamura at the time of disposal of the bail
application mentioned that this was a typing error on the part of
the I/O.
Learned Counsel also submitted that as the cases under
NDPS Act involves some technical questions of law so, procedural
lapses be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of
the bail application and furthermore in this case the I/O has
submitted charge-sheet and the case is now posted for DC and FC.
So, considering the period of detention of the accused-in-custody,
the accused may be released on bail in any condition.
On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing for the State-
respondent strongly opposed the submission made by Learned
Counsel for the accused-in-custody and submitted that from the
forwarding report of I/O dated 14.05.2025 addressed to the
Learned Trial Court it will be crystal clear that in the first para of
the forwarding report it was clearly mentioned by I/O that the
"grounds of arrest" has been communicated in writing to the
accused person and the same was verbally informed to his near
relatives. That written "grounds of arrest" was also forwarded to
the Learned Court on 14.05.2025 which was duly signed by the
concerned Learned Special Judge. But Learned P.P. also fairly
admitted that in the said communication which was supplied to
the accused by the I/O the date was wrongly mentioned as
08.04.2025 which was nothing but a typing/clerical error because
on 08.04.2025 there was no question of arresting the accused in
connection with this case and after conjoint reading of the
forwarding report dated 14.05.2025 submitted by I/O to the
Learned Court and the memo regarding "grounds of arrest"
supplied to the accused it will be clear that at the time of arrest,
the "grounds of arrest" was duly communicated in writing to the
accused. So, Learned P.P. submitted that on this plea the present
accused is not entitled to get any benefit in connection with the
case.
Further, referring the arrest memo prepared as per Section
35 of BNSS Learned P.P. submitted that in the arrest memo also
the signature of the accused was obtained and in column No.8 it
was clearly written that the intimation regarding arrest was duly
communicated to the wife of the accused person. So, Learned P.P.
submitted that there is/was no procedural violation on the part of
the I/O and furthermore since the contraband item was recovered
from the residence of the accused when he found to be absconded
and in the forwarding report it was clearly mentioned by the I/O
that in course of search and seizure the father of the accused
stated to the police that the recovered articles were Dry Ganja and
his son Bishu Kumar Tripura stored the same for the purpose of
selling to earn money. It was further submitted by Learned P.P.
that the accused was arrested on 13.05.2025 at about 15.20 hrs.
and on the following day i.e. on 14.05.2025 he was produced
before the Court when he was duly represented by his engaged
Learned Defence Counsel and during that period no such plea was
taken on behalf of the accused that the "grounds of arrest" was
not communicated to him and furthermore since in this case the
I/O himself supplied the copy of "grounds of arrest" narrating the
details of the case to him so the plea taken by Learned Counsel
for the accused-in-custody cannot be legally accepted and cannot
be sustained in the eye of law.
Finally in support of his contention, Learned P.P. relied upon
one citation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1702, wherein Hon‟ble the Apex Court observed as under:
"20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the
alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while
overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302
IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter
alia, that there was no mention in the remand orders
about service of memo of grounds of arrest (para 45); the
arrest memos were allegedly template-based and not
personalised (para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated
that they were present at the time of arrest or had signed
the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of
India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 - 50)
that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed,
written, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately
after arrest was a violation entitling the accused to bail.
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand
records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of
the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented
from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest,
evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of
the accusations. No material has been placed on record to
establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged
procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable
prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect
and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated
above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor
while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section
302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its
reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is
misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially
different facts and statutory contexts. The approach
adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that
procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent
prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or
entitle the accused to bail."
Referring the same, Learned P.P. submitted that in view of
the observation on the Hon‟ble Apex Court if it is found that no
"grounds of arrest" was communicated to the accused still it is a
curable defect and cannot by itself warrant release of accused on
bail and also it cannot be said that the arrest was illegal and the
accused be entitled to bail.
Learned P.P. also relied upon another case reference of the
Hon‟ble High Court at Calcutta in dealing with CRM (NDPS) No.169
of 2025 along with Other cases reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal
4502 wherein in Para Nos.37 to 40, Hon‟ble High Court of
Calcutta also observed as under:-
"37. In most of the instant bail applications as stated
above the recovery was made from the possession of the
petitioners who according to prosecution case knew about
the transportation or carrying narcotic substance and each
of them had alleged role in the transportation and/or
possession with conscious knowledge of what they are
doing.
38. Even on perusal of Vihaan Kumar Case (supra) in
paragraph 17, it appears that the argument canvassed on
behalf of the respondents is that even if the appellant is
released on the grounds of violating Article 22, the
arresting officer can arrest him again or not and the
Hon'ble Supreme court held "at this stage it is not
necessary to decide the issue." Accordingly Supreme Court
has not yet completely negated said issue and has kept it
open for future consideration.
39. Petitioner heavily relied upon a co-ordinate Bench
judgment of this court in CRM (NDPS) 144 of 2025,
(Ramkrishna v. State of West Bengal), where in an offence
under NDPS Act, bail prayer of petitioner was allowed only
on the ground of non-compliance of section 52(1) of the
NDPS Act, without going into merit of the case. But it
appears that the above-mentioned judgments of Supreme
Court passed in connection with stringent provisions under
the NDPS case were neither referred non discussed in the
said judgment, while dealt with bail prayer of the accused,
and as such it is not binding upon me.
40. Considering observations made in above mentioned
cases viz. Superintendent, NCB Chennai (Supra) and
Narayanaswamy Rabi Shankar (supra), it appears to me
that the offence under NDPS Act containing stringent
provisions are not to be equated with general offences.
Needless to say that the NDPS Act has been enacted by the
legislature to achieve specific purpose and objectives as
stated in preamble and in the object and reasons of the
Act. Fundamental rights usually strikes a balance between
individual liberty with the interest of justice and social
control. Offences under NDPS Act are very serious in
nature and any sort of indulgence against combatting such
menace may have a detrimental effect in the society, more
specifically it's adverse impact may destroy specially the
young generation of the country. It is quite expected that
the stringent provisions of the Act which includes section
37 of the Act must be construed in the manner which
would enhance the objectives of the special Act and not to
frustrate the very purpose and objective of the Act. While
dealing with such issue, court must be cautious in exercise
of the power, so that it must not create any undue
advantage or benefit to the persons accused of serious
offences under the NDPS Act or to demoralise the officers
who have been specially conferred with the powers to
combat the serious crime and/or encourage the
unscrupulous element to commit crime. An offence under
the NDPS Act cannot be compared with the ordinary
offences committed against an individual or with the
accused of ordinary crime. It is a crime against society at
large and the nation itself. I am afraid that any other
interpretation of stringent provisions including section 37
of NDPS Act may frustrate the very purpose and objectives
of the Act."
Relying upon the same, Learned P.P. further submitted that
in view of the aforesaid citation there is no scope to release the
accused on bail in this case. Finally Learned P.P. submitted that
considering the materials on record the bail petition filed by the
accused be rejected/dismissed henceforth.
The prosecution case in short is that on 10.01.2025 one SI
Uttam Paul, UB of Melaghar PS laid an FIR to O/C Melaghar Police
Station alleging inter alia that on that day at about 1010 hours the
O/C of the concerned PS received one secret information from one
Pankaj Goyat, Assistant Director of Aizwal Sub-zonal office
Guwahati, ED, Ministry of Finance that on that day they conducted
search in the house of Bishu Kumar Tripura at Larmai Bari, PS
Melaghar in connection with File No.ECIR/AGSZO/04/2022 under
the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. That
time they have found some suspected psychotropic substance to
the residence of said Bishu Kumar Tripura. They also requested to
assist their team in „search and seizure‟ of the said suspected
psychotropic substance. The matter was entered in Police G.D.
entry No.11 dated 10.01.2025 and after that O.C. of the
concerned P.S. referred the matter to the higher authority in
writing to carry out search and seizure. The S.D.P.O. Sonamura
gave an authorization and directed to him to take necessary action
as per law. Accordingly at about 1040 hours vide Melaghar PS
GDE No.14 dated 10.01.2025 the police personnel conducted raid
in the house of Bishu Kumar Tripura. At about 1130 hours after
arrival to the address they found the staff of Enforcement
Directorate already cordoned the said house by CRPF personnel
when they found two independent witnesses namely Debalina Roy
and Salfa Debbarma who were present at the request of ED. After
that as per direction of O/C Melaghar PS he prepared body search
memo, pre-search memo and post house search memo in
presence of witnesses and apprised them regarding issuance of
pre-search memo, body search memo and translated the same
into Bengali version. Before that he asked one elderly person who
was present who disclosed him as the father of the accused Bishu
Kumar Tripura. Then he asked him whether he wants to search or
not the raid party in presence of Gazetted Officer. Debasish
Saha,O/C Melaghar PS being a Gazetted Officer who was present.
But he denied searching of the raid party. However raid party also
conducted body of search team by the witness. During search no
narcotic article was recovered from the search team. Accordingly
the informant along with staff and staff of ED jointly conducted
raid and search in the house of Bishu Kumar Tripura after
observing all formalities in presence of O/C Melaghar P.S. and two
independent witnesses. During search and raid they recovered one
blue colour plastic drum and two nos. white colour sacks when
smell of ganja was coming out from those sacks. That time the
father of accused informed that Bishu Kumar Tripura stored the
same for purpose of selling and after measurement 66 kg of dry
ganja was recovered and thereafter after observing all formalities
the seizure was made. The accused found to be absconded and
accordingly the FIR was submitted to the O/C of the concerned
P.S. During investigation the ED team conducted arrest of accused
on 13.05.2025 at about 1520 hours and after that he was
forwarded to the Court of Learned Special Judge on 14.05.2025 by
I/O when on the same date the accused has engaged one Learned
Defence Counsel to conduct his defence.
I have gone through the forwarding report of I.O., arrest
memo and the intimation regarding "grounds of arrest". It is on
record that on 14.05.2025 when the accused was produced before
the Court of Learned Special Judge with forwarding report and
separate intimation of arrest to the accused containing "grounds
of arrest" Learned Special Judge in the order did not specifically
mention about the communication of "grounds of arrest" was
supplied to the accused but it was specifically mentioned that the
accused was produced under arrest with forwarding report, arrest
memo and medical examination report. But on perusal of the
record it appears that on the same day the document which was
communicated to the accused as "grounds of arrest" was also
submitted before the Court which contained the signature of
Learned Special Judge and in the forwarding report it was
specifically mentioned by I/O that the "grounds of arrest" was
communicated to the accused in writing and the same was
intimated to his near relatives verbally but for any reason in the
communication regarding "intimation of grounds of arrest" the
date was mentioned as 08.04.2025. Now if we meticulously go
through the forwarding report, the copy of "grounds of arrest"
supplied to the accused it can easily be understood that at the
time of arrest the "grounds of arrest" was duly communicated to
the accused. So the submission of Learned defence counsel in this
regard cannot be accepted. Even if we assume that the said
intimation of "grounds of arrest" alleged to be written on
08.04.2025 is incorrect still in the forwarding report of I.O. dated
14.05.2025 it was clearly mentioned that the "grounds of arrest"
was duly communicated to the accused in writing. So those two
documents cannot be interpreted in different manner.
Furthermore, the contraband item was recovered from the
residence of the accused when he was found to be absconding.
The statement of his father also cannot be overlooked during this
stage of investigation. The accused was produced before the Court
on 14.05.2025 and on the same day the accused was duly
defended by a Learned Counsel and on that day no such plea was
taken by the accused in this regard. From the printed format of
arrest memo prepared by ED it appears that the "grounds of
arrest" was duly communicated to the wife of the accused. So the
submission of Learned defence counsel that there were serious
latches on the part of the prosecution cannot be accepted to be
true and valid one for further interference. This is a case under
NDPS Act. The contraband items of commercial quantity was
recovered from the residence of the accused. It is the settled
position of law that the stringent provisions under NDPS Act
cannot be compared with the other general offences. In granting
bail in a case wherein contraband item of commercial quantity is
involved the twin conditions of Section-37 of NDPS Act are to be
fulfilled. Herein the case at hand, save and except the plea of
"grounds of arrest" no other grounds were taken by the Learned
defence counsel at the time of hearing. So after going through the
relevant prosecution papers it appears to this Court that the
accused petitioner before this Court at the time of hearing of
argument could not project any sufficient grounds to invoke the
jurisdiction provided under Section 37 of NDPS Act in dealing with
the bail application. As such after hearing both the sides and also
after going through the aforesaid citations relied upon and
referred by Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the prosecution it
appears to this Court that the present accused-in-custody is not
entitled to be released on bail in view of the stringent conditions of
Section 37 of NDPS Act. Accordingly, the bail application filed
stands rejected. The accused is to remain in J/C as before.
However, at the time of going through the record of the
Learned Trial Court it appears that the firisti was not properly
prepared. The documents were indexed in a scattered manner and
the firisti does not contain the true picture of the documents which
needs to be looked into. In this case the forwarding letter of I/O at
the time of production of accused is found in one file but the
intimation of "grounds of arrest" along with arrest memo was
found in another file. Even the index/firisti does not contain any
such information in this regard and at the time of hearing of case
it is not possible on the part of the Court to find out the relevant
papers/documents instantly to hear the bail application properly.
As such, all the Learned Special Judges be asked to ensure that at
the time of sending or transmission of records to the High Court,
the firisti is to be prepared in such a manner so that on the basis
of firisti the documents can be traced out properly failing which it
becomes difficult on the part of this Court to trace out the relevant
documents at the time of hearing of bail matters.
Register (Judicial) be asked to circulate the copy of order to
all the Learned Special Judges of the State.
It is also found that, in the arrest memo simply the I/O has
mentioned in the relevant column of "grounds of arrest" only case
number with relevant sections although separate "grounds of
arrest" is communicated to the accused in writing but the same is
not mentioned as annexed with the arrest memo. So, to avoid any
confusion it is desired that since the relevant column of the arrest
memo does not contain sufficient space to mention the "grounds
of arrest" and in the event of supplying copy of "grounds of arrest"
to the accused the same be reflected in the connected arrest
memo with the caption enclosure "copy of grounds of arrest"
supplied to accused. In absence of that the same creates a serious
confusion/doubt about the conduct of the I/O regarding
compliance of "grounds of arrest" to the accused at the time of
forwarding of accused before the Courts. Henceforth, it is directed
that the office of Director General Police, Tripura shall intimate all
the investigating officers of the State who are dealing with NDPS
cases to ensure that at the time of forwarding of arrest memo
before any Court the same should contain with the caption, "enclo
copy of grounds of arrest in writing" supplied to the accused to
avoid any confusion in dealing with bail matters in future.
Learned P.P. be asked to apprise this order to the office of
D.G.P., Tripura accordingly.
Return back the CD to I/O through Learned P.P. along with a
copy of this order.
Send down the record of the Learned Trial Court along with a
copy of this order.
With this observation, this present bail application stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
Amrita
AMRITA DEB DEB
Date: 2025.08.29 12:39:06
+05'30'
