Tripura High Court
Sri Alhaj Hussain Laskar vs The State Of Tripura on 14 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
BA No.48 of 2025
Sri Alhaj Hussain Laskar,
C/O Sri Aftab Uddin Laskar,
Of VTC Niz-Jalalpur PT I,
P.O. Jalalpur,
Sub-District-Latigora,
District Cachar, Assam 788816
---Applicant on behalf of
accused person in custody
Ansar Uddin Laskar,
S/O Md. Aftab Uddin Laskar,
Of Jalalpur, P.S.-Kalain,
Cachar, Assam
---Accused person in
custody
-Vs-
The State of Tripura
---Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arpan Jamatia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
14/07/2025
This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed for
releasing of the accused Ansar Uddin Laskar on bail who is lodging
in jail in connection with Ambassa P.S. Case No.2025 ABS 003
under Section 22(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act.
Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Sarkar assisted by Mr.
A. Jamatia, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused in
custody and also heard Mr. R. Saha, Learned Addl. P.P. appearing
on behalf of the State-respondent. The case diary is also produced
as ordered earlier.
At the time of hearing Learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused in custody first of all drawn the attention of
the court that on the basis of the suo-motu complaint lodged by
one Joy Thapa, S.I. of Ambassa P.S. dated 10.02.2025 this
present case has been registered and at the time of registration of
this case two persons were arrested and taken into custody and
they were produced before the court and in course of their
interrogation the name of the present accused was revealed. So
this present accused-in-custody was produced before the court of
Learned Special Judge on 14.02.2025 and since then he is lodging
in custody. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
accused is totally innocent. He is also not FIR named and
furthermore no contraband item was recovered from his
possession. So in view of the spirit of NDPS Act there is no scope
to detain him furthermore in custody. Learned Senior Counsel
again submitted that in absent of cogent evidence on record there
is no scope to detain the accused in custody and furthermore
referring the annexure page-47 of the bail application i.e. the
arrest memo Learned Senior Counsel drawn the attention of the
court that the ground of arrest is required by law was not
communicated to the accused person at the time of his arrest
which violated the right of accused provided under Article 21 and
22 of the Constitution of India and furthermore Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that in a similarly situated situation in respect
of another accused namely Samim Uddin Purakayastha this court
vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed in connection with BA
36/2025 enlarged the accused on bail and since the present
accused is in custody is standing on the same footing so he claims
for parity and Learned Senior Counsel urged for releasing the
accused on bail. In support of his contention Learned Senior
Counsel referred the following citations:
In Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi dated
May 15, 2024) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 wherein in para
Nos.28, 29, 30, 37 and 48 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as
under:
"28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the
communication of the grounds is exactly the
identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions
require that the "grounds" of "arrest" or "detention",
as the case may be, must be communicated in
writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of
the fundamental right as made by the Constitution
Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of
the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as
the requirement to communicate the grounds of
arrest is concerned.
29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that
the requirement to communicate the grounds of
arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a
person arrested in connection with an offence or a
person placed under preventive detention as provided
under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of
India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under
any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional
requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the
custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as
the case may be.
30. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have
already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj
Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7
SCC 576] laying down beyond the pale of doubt that
the grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the person arrested of an offence at the
earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of the learned ASG
that there was no requirement under law to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the
appellant-accused is noted to be rejected.
37. The interpretation given by the learned Single
Judge that the grounds of arrest were conveyed to
the accused in writing vide the arrest memo is
unacceptable on the face of the record because the
arrest memo does not indicate the grounds of arrest
being incorporated in the said document. Column 9 of
the arrest memo (Annexure P-7) which is being
reproduced hereinbelow simply sets out the "reasons
for arrest" which are formal in nature and can be
generally attributed to any person arrested on
accusation of an offence whereas the "grounds of
arrest" would be personal in nature and specific to
the person arrested.
"9. Reason for arrest
(a) Prevent the accused person from
committing any further offence.
(b) For proper investigation of the offence.
(c) To prevent the accused person from
causing the evidence of the offence to
disappear or tampering with such evidence in
any manner.
(d) To prevent such person from making any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
court or to the police officer.
(e) As unless such person is arrested, his
presence in the court whenever required
cannot be ensured."
48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that
there is a significant difference in the phrase
"reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest". The
"reasons for arrest" as indicated in the arrest memo
are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the
accused person from committing any further offence;
for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the
accused person from causing the evidence of the
offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence
in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for
making inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to the investigating officer. These reasons would
commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of
a crime whereas the "grounds of arrest" would be
required to contain all such details in hand of the
investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of
the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest
informed in writing must convey to the arrested
accused all basic facts on which he was being
arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of
defending himself against custodial remand and to
seek bail. Thus, the "grounds of arrest" would
invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be
equated with the "reasons of arrest" which are
general in nature."
In Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors.
reported in 2024 7 SCC 576 Hon'ble the Apex Court in para
Nos.38 and 45 observed as under:
"38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of
the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person
who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for
such arrest. This being the fundamental right
guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of
conveying information of the grounds of arrest must
necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended
purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA
enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof
to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless
the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are
satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to
grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the
provision are that, firstly, the court must be satisfied,
after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor
to oppose the application for release, that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested
person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly, that
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
To meet this requirement, it would be essential for
the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on
which the authorised officer arrested him/her under
Section 19 and the basis for the officer's "reason to
believe" that he/she is guilty of an offence
punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the
arrested person has knowledge of these facts that
he/she would be in a position to plead and prove
before the Special Court that there are grounds to
believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so
as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore,
communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated
by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19
PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must
be given due importance.
45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and
purpose to the constitutional and the statutory
mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the
arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that
it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such
written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested
person as a matter of course and without exception.
The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar
Qureshi [Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India, 2017
SCC OnLine Del 12108] and the Bombay High Court in
Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal [Chhagan Chandrakant
Bhujbal v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9938
: (2017) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) 929] , which hold to the
contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case
on hand, the admitted position is that ED's
investigating officer merely read out or permitted
reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and
left it at that, which is also disputed by the
appellants. As this form of communication is not
found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
Section 19(1) PMLA, we have no hesitation in holding
that their arrest was not in keeping with the
provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA. Further, as already
noted supra, the clandestine conduct of ED in
proceeding against the appellants, by recording the
second ECIR immediately after they secured interim
protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not
commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise
of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and,
in consequence, their remand to the custody of ED
and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be
sustained."
Similarly in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana &
Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269 Hon'ble the Apex Court
in para No.21 observed as under:
"CONCLUSIONS
21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of
grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of
Article 22(1);
b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be
provided to the arrested person in such a manner
that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts
constituting the grounds is imparted and
communicated to the arrested person effectively in
the language which he understands. The mode and
method of communication must be such that the
object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with
the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will
always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to
prove compliance with the requirements of Article
22(1);
d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation
of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed
by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a
violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-
compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1)
vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further
orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also
vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the
investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same
time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach
of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);
e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial
Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate
to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1)
and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and
f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is
the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of
the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even
if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The
statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the
court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21
and 22 of the Constitution is established."
Referring the aforesaid citations Learned Senior Counsel
further drawn the attention of the Court that in view of the
principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforenoted cases this present accused person deserves to be
released on bail in any condition on the ground that the grounds
of arrest were not communicated to the accused at the time of his
arrest.
On the other hand, Learned Addl. P.P. Mr. R. Saha appearing
on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that this is a case
under NDPS Act and considering the materials on record there is
no scope to presume the accused to be innocent in view of the
provision provided under Section 37 of NDPS Act and referring the
arrest memo as relied upon by Learned Senior Counsel for the
accused he submitted that in column No.8 of the arrest memo it
was mentioned that the grounds of arrest was communicated to
the father of the accused so it cannot be said that the guidelines
as contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was not
complied with by the I.O. and considering the nature and gravity
of the offence Learned Addl. P.P. strongly opposed the bail
application and submitted that there is/are sufficient materials
against the accused showing his implication with the alleged
crime. So at this stage the submission made by Learned Senior
Counsel cannot be accepted and urged for rejection of the bail
application. He also relied upon one citation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1228 wherein in para No.36 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as
under:
"36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for
reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read
over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement
that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest. If he is
arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been
arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be
told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would
be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed
a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which
amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts
done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely
of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough.
(See: Vimal Kishore Mehrotra (supra))."
Referring the same Learned Addl. P.P. submitted that in this
case there was proper compliance of the requirements of law
regarding grounds of arrest. So the submission of Learned Senior
Counsel cannot be accepted.
In this case the prosecution was set into motion on the
basis of an FIR lodged by the informant S.I. Joy Thapa to O.C.,
Ambassa P.S. alleging inter alia that on 10.02.2025 at about 1515
hours he received one reliable information that a twelve-wheeler
truck bearing registration No.AS01-HC-6438 was transporting
YABA tablets concealed in a secret chamber within the oil tank and
was proceeding towards Agartala from Churaibari. The information
was recorded as PS GDE No.20 and necessary permission for
interception and search was obtained from SDPO as well as SP
and SDM was informed. Thereafter the police team along with
Executive Magistrate and two independent witnesses intercepted
the said vehicle at Betbagan Naka point on NH-08 at around 1655
hours that the driver Sibajul Hossain and co-driver Sairul Islam
both are residents of Kalain Cachar Assam were detained and
after serving of notice under Section-50 of the NDPS Act and
conducting personal search the vehicle was searched in their
presence. That time total 462 numbers of packets suspected to
contain Methamphetamine YABA tablets were recovered from a
concealed chamber in the fuel tank and each packet contained 10
blue pouches with 200 tablets approximately 9,24,000 nos.
weighing 100.095 kg and the seizure also included around 10
metric ton tons of coal as well as the vehicle and the contrabands
tested positive during spot kit testing and those two drivers were
arrested and after that they were produced before the Court on
11.02.2025 and in course of interrogation the name of the present
accused person was revealed that he was actively involved with
the alleged crime. Accordingly this present accused was taken into
custody and was produced under arrest on 14.02.2025 and since
then he is lodging in jail. These are the sum and substance of the
prosecution story.
I have perused the FIR and other relevant prosecution
papers and also perused the arrest memo. The grounds of arrest
as referred by Learned Senior Counsel for the accused in custody
was not reflected in the application for bail. However the matter
was brought to the knowledge of the Court in course of hearing.
On perusal of the case diary prima facie it appears that the
'grounds of arrest' as required by law were not communicated to
the accused at the time of his arrest and further on perusal of the
'arrest memo' as annexed with the bail application specifically the
column No.5 only it is written 'grounds of arrest- in c/w above
noted case reference'. Nothing further is written in this regard.
Similarly in column No.8 in the arrest memo name and full
particulars of the witnesses it is also written the name of the
father of the alleged accused which was written by the I.O. Even
the same was not signed by the father of the accused. Situated
thus, on bare perusal of the arrest memo it could not be
ascertained how the 'grounds of arrest' were communicated either
to the accused-applicant in custody or to his friends or near
relatives. Further in para No.12 and 13 of the judgment of
Kasireddy (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court further observed as
under:
"12. Section 47 of the BNSS reads thus:
"47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of
right to bail. -
(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person
without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full
particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other
grounds for such arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person
other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall
inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on
bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf."
13. Section 48 of the BNSS reads thus:
"48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the
arrest, etc., to relative or friend. -
(1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under
this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such
arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any
of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be
disclosed or mentioned by the arrested person for the purpose of
giving such information and also to the designated police officer
in the district.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his
rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the
police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the
arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the
police station in such form as the State Government may, by
rules, provide.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such
arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the
requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been
complied with in respect of such arrested person."
In another judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ashish
Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1318 in para Nos.5, 6 and 7 observed as under:
"5. Upon perusing annexure P-3, we can see that what has been
provided to the appellant is only an arrest memo in the
prescribed format, which is meant to be given to the appellant by
way of an intimation. It has been filled up with the name of the
appellant along with the place of arrest. Additionally, it has been
written that he has been arrested based upon the statement of
the co-accused.
6. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest
memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other
worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him.
7. This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under
Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect
to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India we are inclined to set
aside the impugned judgment, particularly, in light of the
judgment rendered by this Court reported as Prabir Purkayastha
v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254."
So after going through the aforesaid principles of law it
appears that the prosecution in this case at the time of hearing
totally failed to satisfy the Court that the grounds of arrest were
duly communicated to the accused or to his friends or near
relatives. Even there is no other connected papers justifying that
the grounds of arrest was duly communicated even to the family
members of the accused also. Further on perusal of the arrest
memo and as submitted by Learned Addl. P.P. that the same was
informed to the father of the accused is also not true. Only the
name of the father of accused is mentioned in the arrest memo
which prima facie shows utter violations of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. In such a situation considering the
materials on record and also after going through the judgment
referred by Learned Senior Counsel for the accused in custody in
Prabir Purakayastha (supra), Pankaj Bansal (supra) and
Vihaan Kumar (supra) it appears that there were gross violation
of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and also Section
48 of BNSS, 2023 on the part of the I.O. In such a situation this
Court has got no other option save and except to consider grant of
interim bail to the accused in custody. The citation referred by
Learned Addl. P.P. The citation referred by Learned Addl. P.P. at
this stage in my considered view does not support the prosecution
story.
Accordingly, the accused in custody may be released on
interim bail till 14.08.2025 of his execution of bail bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount who must be a
public servant with the following terms and conditions:
(i)That the accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Court without prior permission of the Court,
(ii)The accused shall attend before I.O. on every Monday and
Thursday until further order.
(iii)He shall not make any attempt to tamper any evidence
on record of the prosecution.
In default of the above the accused shall remain in J/C as
before. Since prima facie prosecution could not satisfy the Court at
the time of hearing that the grounds of arrest were duly
communicated to the accused. So it is ordered that the I.O. of this
case shall submit a report regarding the manner and mode in how
he communicated the grounds of arrest to the accused and
whether he complied with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforenoted cases or not before this Court on the next
date.
A copy of this order be sent to the I.O. through Learned
Addl. P.P. along with CD.
A copy of this order be furnished to the Learned Senior
Counsel for the accused in custody for information and
compliance.
Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a
copy of this order.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
DATTA Date: 2025.07.15 04:47:02
+05'30'
Moumita
