Tripura High Court
Smt. Anita Pal vs The State Of Tripura on 28 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
BA No.98 of 2025
Smt. Anita Pal,
W/O- Sri Dhananjoy Pal,
Chhinaihani, Shanitala,
P.S.- Airport, District- West Tripura
---Petitioner on behalf of Accused
Person-In-Custody
Sri Dipankar Pal (54),
S/O-Sri Dhananjoy Pal
Both being resident of:
Chhinaihani, Shanitala,
P.S.- Airport, District-West Tripura
---Accused Petitioner-In-Custody
-Vs-
The State of Tripura
---Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Samrat Ghosh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
28/10/2025
This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed
for granting bail to the accused namely Shri Dipankar Pal who is
lodging in jail in connection with Airport P.S. Case No.079/2024
under Section 21(c)/20(B)/25/29 of the NDPS Act corresponding
to Special NDPS 43/2025.
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Samrat Ghosh appearing on
behalf of the accused-in-custody and also heard Learned P.P., Mr.
R. Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the accused first
of all drawn the attention of the Court referring the contents of the
FIR and submitted that in this case contraband items of
intermediate quantity was seized from the possession of the
accused and the accused is lodging in jail on and from
30.09.2024. It was also submitted that by this time another
accused Shri Samrat Barman alias Sonai has been released on bail
on the issue of 'ground of arrest'. But no bail application was
moved by this present accused-in-custody. However, considering
the period of detention of the accused-in-custody and furthermore
no 'ground of arrest' was communicated to the accused at the
time of his arrest. So, Learned Counsel urged for releasing the
accused on bail in any condition.
On the contrary Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta appearing on
behalf of the State-respondent strongly opposed the bail
application and submitted that the present accused-in-custody
was produced under arrest before the Learned Trial Court on
28.09.2024 along with another and since then he is lodging in jail.
It was further submitted by Learned P.P. that from the
contents of the FIR it will be clear that the contraband items of
commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the
accused person. Furthermore, the I/O at the time of registration of
the case has registered the case under Section 21(c)/20(B)/25/29
of the NDPS Act for having possession of contraband items of
commercial quantity and furthermore the accused was duly
represented by his lawyer from the time of his production before
the Learned Trial Court and such plea was never raised earlier.
Moreso, the contraband item was directly seized from the
possession of the present accused person and as such in view of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1702 in Para No.20.1.7 on the basis of on the plea of 'ground
of arrest' there is no scope to consider bail application of the
present accused-in-custody. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant paragraph is mentioned here in below:-
"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."
It was further submitted by Learned P.P. that the case is
now posted for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses w.e.f.
09.12.2025 to 15.12.2025. So, Learned P.P. urged for dismissal of
the bail application with a direction to the Learned Trial Court to
dispose of the case giving top priority on the ground that the
accused is lodging in jail.
Considered.
I have heard both the sides at length.
In this case prosecution was set into motion on the basis of
an FIR laid by one Srikanta Guha of Airport P.S. on 27.09.2024 to
O/C Airport P.S. alleging inter alia on 27.09.2024 at about 1930
hrs a credible information was received by O/C Airport P.S. from
his engaged source that a consignment of contraband goods would
deliver to one Sentu Das of Narayanpur near market. Accordingly
the fact was reduced into writing and entered in GD vide Airport
PS GDE No.31 for record and reference and the matter was
informed to SDPO(NCC) as well as by sending RG with a request
to remain present at Narayanpur near market and the O/C PS
directed him to rush towards the PO and to take necessary action.
Accordingly, the informant rushed to the PO and found that infront
of the house of one Sentu Das the car arrived and the present
accused persons got down from the vehicle with a sack in their
hand and entered in the house of Sentu Das. At the time of
entering into the house of Sentu Das they detained the present
accused and another but as they tried to escape, however, they
were detained by the police personnel and seeing the police party
the driver of the car along with the car managed to escape from
the spot and the house owner also managed to escape. By this
time, SDPO(NCC) arrived to the PO. On arrival to the PO the
informant obtained authorization from SDPO(NCC) to conduct
search of the house premises and issued notice under Section 50
of NDPS Act to the accused persons in presence of witnesses and
before search they have offered themselves for personal search
preparing pre-search memo in presence of witnesses which was
declined by them. In the presence of witnesses and SDPO(NCC)
they opened the sack which was in possession of the accused
persons and found 6 nos. packets containing suspected to be dry
Ganja and one packet containing 17 nos. Eskuf cough syrup. After
weighting the total weight of the Ganja was found 11.6 kg. and
the packet containing 17 nos. Eskuf cough syrup and after that
those were seized and the present accused and another were
arrested and the FIR was laid by the informant. This is the sum
and substance of the prosecution case. Accordingly the case was
registered and in course of investigation this present accused and
another produced before the Court on 28.09.2024 and by this
time one of the accused was released on bail and the present
accused is still lodging in custody.
I have also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. The accused all along represented by his counsel.
The seized contraband item was directly recovered from the
possession of this present accused and another and the same was
seized from their possession after observing all formalities and it
also appears that the ground of arrest was informed to the family
members of the accused. So, in view of the observation made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforenoted case on the basis of
ground of arrest at this stage there is no scope to grant bail to the
accused. However, since the contraband items of commercial
quantity was seized from the possession of the accused and I/O
laid charge-sheet against both the accused persons showing
possession of contraband items of commercial quantity and the
case is now posted for recording evidence on the prosecution
witnesses. So considering the materials on record at this stage I
find no scope to release the accused on bail. Hence, this bail
application filed by the applicant is rejected. The accused is to
remain in J/C as before.
However, it is ordered that since the accused is lodging in
custody, so Learned Trial Court shall make all endeavour to
dispose of the case giving top priority, so that the right of the
accused is not curtailed.
With this observation this present bail application stands
disposed of.
Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a
copy of this order.
Return back the CD to the I.O. through Learned P.P. along
with a copy of this order.
JUDGE
Amrtia
MOUMIT Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
A DATTA Date: 2025.10.29
13:01:38 +05'30'
