Smt. Gita Rani Chanda vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 2493 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smt. Gita Rani Chanda vs The State Of Tripura on 10 April, 2026

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                        BA No.69 of 2026
Smt. Gita Rani Chanda,
Wife of Sri Balaram Shil,
Resident of Dwarikapur,
P.O. Dwarikapur, P.S. Kalyanpur,
Teliamura Sub-Division,
District: Khowai Tripura, PIN:799 203
                                                -----Applicant
For and on behalf of:

Sri Balaram Shil,
Age: 46 years,
Son of Late Bhutan Shil,
Resident of Dwarikapur,
P.S. Kalyanpur, Khowai,
District: Khowai Tripura,
                                 -----Custody Accused Person

                               -Vs-
The State of Tripura
(To represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor,
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura)
                                                    ---Respondent

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.

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

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                              Order
10/04/2026

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed for

granting bail to the accused in custody namely Sri Balaram Shil in

connection with Pecharthal P.S. Case No.2025 PTL 013 dated

21.06.2025 corresponding to Special (NDPS) case No.07 of 2025

pending before the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Unakoti

District, Kailashahar registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS

Act and Section 192(1) of the M.V. Act.

Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted

by Mr. K. Nath, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

accused and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. R. Datta appearing on

behalf of the State.

At the time of hearing Learned Senior Counsel first of all

drawn the attention of this Court that this accused person is

lodging in jail on and from 25.06.2025 and by this time the I.O.

has submitted chargesheet against him along with other accused

persons and referring the initial forwarding report Learned Senior

Counsel drawn the attention of the Court that on the basis of

confessional statement of another co-accused namely Santosh

Paul was arrested but during investigation the I.O. could not

collect any materials against him showing his direct nexus with

the alleged crime.

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that this present

accused is not FIR named and no contraband item was recovered

from his possession during investigation. So simply on the basis of

statement of another co-accused there is no scope to detain him

in custody. It was further submitted that in a similarly situated

case this Court granted bail to another accused in connection with

B.A. No.43 of 2026 by order dated 16.03.2026, based upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P. Krishna

Mohan Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 and in State (by NCB) Bengaluru

vs. Pallulabid Ahmed Arimutta & Anr. reported in (2022) 12

SCC 633.

Referring those judgments and the order of this Court

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that since the present accused

is also standing on the same footing so there is no scope to treat

the accused in different manner and urged for releasing the

accused on bail in any condition.

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

the State-respondent strongly opposed the submission of Learned

Senior Counsel and submitted that during investigation sufficient

materials could collect by I.O. against him and as such at this

stage there is no scope to release him on bail and urged for

dismissal of the bail application.

Heard both the sides at length. Perused the relevant

prosecution papers.

It is on record that on the basis of a Suo-motu complaint by

one L. Darlong, SI of Police of Pecharthal P.S. on 21.06.2025 the

case was registered and initially one Bapi Das was intercepted in

this case and was produced before this Court and on the basis of

statement of said accused another accused Santosh Paul was

arrested and taken into custody in this case and on 25.06.2025

the I.O. caused arrest of the present accused in custody. In the

forwarding report it is asserted by I.O. that during interrogation

the accused Santosh Paul confessed his guilt and disclosed that he

possessed/purchased eskuf syrup total 1790 bottles from

Guwahati Assam along with his associate with a view to

carry/smuggle the said eskuf syrup to Agartala area and to sell it

illegally for his wrongful gain. He also disclosed the name and

particulars of his another associate and partner namely Balaram

Shil who was allegedly involved in this business with him since

long back. Accordingly he was taken into custody and however by

this time the I.O. has submitted chargesheet against him and

others.

I have perused the case diary. It is the admitted position

that this present accused is not FIR named and no contraband

item was directly recovered from his possession in course of

investigation. This Court at the time of dealing bail application of

BA No.43 of 2026 relied upon the aforesaid citations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India. Since Learned Senior Counsel at the time

of hearing of the bail application also relied upon the said

citations. So for the sake of convenience, let us reproduce herein

the aforesaid citations:

In P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh Page 3 of 7 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157,

wherein in para No.53 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as

under:-

"53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges:--

**** **** ****

(iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial.

Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused. (v) A confessional statement of one accused implicating another co-accused may be taken into consideration by the court against such coaccused in terms of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, only at the stage of trial, where (1) the confession itself was relevant and admissible in terms of the Evidence Act; (2) was duly proved against the maker; (3) such confessional statement incriminates the maker along with the co-accused and; (4) both the accused persons in question are in a joint trial for the same offence.

**** **** ****"

In State (by NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad

Arimutta & Anr. along with other connected matters reported in

(2022) 12 SCC 633, wherein in para Nos.10, 11 and 12, Hon'ble

the Apex Court observed as under:-

"10. Vide order dated 5-1-2020, learned counsel for the petitioner NCB were directed to prepare a comprehensive tabulated statement with respect to the role attributed to each of the respondents, the evidence gathered against them at the time of their arrest, their antecedents, the dates on which they were arrested and the period of custody undergone by them, for ready reference. The said tabulated statement has been filed and a perusal thereof reveals that in SLP (Crl.) arising out of Diary No. 22702 of 2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465 of 2021, SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 1773-1774 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 2080 of 2021, heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioner NCB on the voluntary statements of the accused and the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act for arresting them. Another piece of evidence referred to is the CDR details in respect of A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A- 8 in the first case which as per the prosecution, goes to show that the said respondents were constantly in touch with each other and with A-1 and A-2 on the date of the seizure. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the fact that the antecedents of A-5, A-6 and A-8 in the first case and A-2 and A-5 in the second case are not clean. 11. Having gone through the records along with the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433] , [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294] , [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569 of 2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act. 12. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh v. State of T.N. [Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., (2021) 4 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 246] , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 Page 5 of 7 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516] ,

[Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433] , [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294] , [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16-9- 2019 [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516] , 14-1-2020 [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433] , 16- 1-2020 [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , 19-12- 2019 [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] and 20-1- 2020 [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] passed in SLP (Crl.) No. arising out of Diary No. 22702 of 2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465 of 2021, SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 1773-74 of 2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080 of 2021 respectively. The impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516], [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433] ,[Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517], [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294] ,[Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] are, accordingly, upheld and the special leave petitions filed by the petitioner NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless."

I have also gone through the aforesaid citations. It is

trite that statement of co-accused can be taken into consideration

during the stage of trial when the confession itself was relevant

and admissible in terms of Evidence Act. However, the trial is not

yet been commenced. This present accused was intercepted based

upon the confessional statement of another co-accused Santosh

Paul whose name also revealed from the statement of FIR named

accused Bapi Das in course of investigation. So considering the

period of incarceration of the accused in custody and based upon

the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court I am inclined to

consider the bail application of the accused in custody namely

Balaram Shil of his execution of bond of Rs.1,000,00/- (one lakh)

with two sureties of like amount out of which one must be public

servant with further condition that the accused shall not leave the

jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court

and shall attend the Learned Court below once in a fortnight till

conclusion of the trial in addition to the normal dates in default

the accused shall remain in J.C. as before.

In view of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court if called for.

Return back to the CD to the I.O. through Learned P.P. along

with a copy of this order.

                                                                 JUDGE




MOUMIT                    Digitally signed by
                          MOUMITA DATTA

A DATTA                   Date: 2026.04.10
                          17:31:42 +05'30'
Moumita