[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Shilpi Deb Das vs The State Of Tripura on 13 April, 2026
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
BA No.67 of 2026
Smt. Shilpi Deb Das,
W.O- Sri Bapi Das,
Resident of Charipara,
P.S. Amtali, Dist-West Tripura.
.....Applicant on behalf of Accused Person in custody
AND
Sri Bapi Das,
S/O. Late Manoranjan Das,
Resident of G.B. 79 Tilla, Agartala,
P.S. New Capital complex, Dist-West Tripura,
Presently residing at Charipara, P.S.- Amtali,
Dist-West Tripura.
.....Accused Person
VERSUS
The State of Tripura
...........Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hare Krishna Bhoumik, Advocate.
Mr. Rakhu Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP.
Date of hearing
& Delivery of judgment : 13.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
ORDER
13.04.2026
This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed for
releasing the custody accused on bail, namely, Sri Bapi Das in connection
with case No. 2025PTL013, now Case No. GR No. 100/2025 corresponding
to NDPS 07/2025 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section
192(A) of the M.V. Act.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Hare Krishna Bhoumik, appearing
on behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Learned PP Mr. Raju
Datta, appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
3. Taking part in the hearing Learned Counsel Mr. Bhowmik has
drawn the attention of the Court that the accused is incarcerated in jail for
the last 9 months and 23 days. Initially, he had filed one bail application
before this Court, which was rejected by this Court and by this time the IO
has submitted the charge sheet against him and trial has commenced. From
the evidence of the informant PW-1, it is clear that the ground of arrest was
not communicated in writing to the accused which is in violation of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in series of cases.
4. It was further submitted that PW-1 in course of his examination
has very specifically stated that either in the FIR or in any statement made to
the IO, he has not disclosed from which part of the vehicle or from which
place the contraband items were seized.
5. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the cross
examination of the said witness wherein he stated that notice under Section
50 of the NDPS Act does not mention the time when it was given nor it
bears any signature of the accused. Further, he has stated that the ground of
arrest in written manner was not communicated to the accused and the
videography of the search process in compliance to Section 105 of BNSS
was not complied with.
6. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhowmik has further drawn the attention
of the Court referring to Annexure-1 i.e. the seizure memo wherein it was
mentioned that the place of seizure was at Pecharthal PS Naka. Referring to
the same, the Learned Counsel submitted that since no contraband item was
directly seized from the possession of the accused, so it is crystal clear that
the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and on conclusion of
trial there will be very least scope to punish him in this case. So in summing
up, Learned Counsel urged for releasing the accused on bail on any
condition. Finally, Learned Counsel submitted that since the prosecution has
failed to ensure the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case, so
there is no scope to detain the accused furthermore in custody.
7. On the other hand, Learned PP Mr. Datta, submitted that on the
point of ground of arrest earlier his bail application was rejected by this
Court. So, at this stage no new grounds could be projected on behalf of the
accused to consider his bail application. He also drawn the attention of the
Court that the judgment delivered by this Court in BA Application
No.04/2026 wherein on similar ground the bail application was rejected.
8. It was further submitted by Learned PP that the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) was pronounced
after registration of the FIR in this case. So the principle of the said
judgment cannot be applied in the case.
9. Heard both the sides.
10. Considered.
11. In this case, the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of
an FIR laid by one S.I. Lalruata Darlong to O/C Pecharthal PS alleging inter
alia, that on 21.06.2025 on the basis of a secret information that some huge
quantum of contraband items will be coming from Guwahati by a bus
bearing No. AS 01 LC 1412, the informant informed the O/C Pecharthal PS
and GD entry was made; thereafter, the matter was informed to the higher
authority of the Police and after that at Pecharthal Naka point the police took
position for detaining the vehicle bearing No. AS 01 LC 1412 and search
was conducted. Prior to that pre-search memo was prepared in presence of
witnesses. After searching the vehicle bearing registration No.AS 01 LC
1412, 12 bundles of cartons inside the vehicle were found which were tightly
packed with plastic cello tape and after removal of the cello tape it was
found that all the cartons contained Eskuf cough syrup. The complainant
counted all the cartons and found that there were total 1790 bottles of Eskuf
syrup having different batch number. Thereafter, he seized the articles from
the possession of the accused after preparing seizure list along with other
articles and caused arrest of the accused and took him to PS. On being
asked, the driver stated that he purchased the cough syrup from Guwahati
with intention to deliver at Agartala. Then in present of the witnesses he
drawn the samples from the seized cartons of cough syrup and finally he laid
the FIR.
12. It is the admitted position that during investigation a bail
petition was moved on his behalf to this Court and this Court after hearing
both the sides rejected the bail petition of the accused. Now the trial of this
case has commenced.
13. It is the settled position of law that a criminal prosecution ends
in conclusion of trial. Here in the case at hand since the trial of this case is
commenced i.e. the evidence of witnesses has been recorded. So, we are at
the stage of trial not at the stage of investigation. The informant, as already
stated, was examined as PW-1. He was duly examined by the prosecution
and thoroughly cross-examined by accused. In course of his examination in
chief as PW-1 he narrated all the facts leading to filing of FIR but during
cross examination by the accused it appears that he made a contradictory
statement. He specifically stated in his cross examination that in the notice
under Section 50 of NDPS Act no time was mentioned and the same did not
contain the signature of the accused. Similarly, he specifically stated that the
ground of arrest has not been communicated in a written manner to the
accused and the videography of the search which was mandatory in
compliance of the provision of Section 105 of BNSS was not followed,
which indicates some lacunas on the part of the prosecution.
14. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the accused relied
upon one citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. App.
No.2195 of 2025 [Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharastra reported in
2026 1 SCC 500] wherein in para 56 the Hon'ble Apex court observed as
under---
"56. In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the
arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences
under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now
BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is
unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on
or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds
be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and
in any case at least two hours prior to production of the
arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest
and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the
person will be at liberty to be set free."
15. Although the aforesaid judgment came later on, after
registration of the FIR but the fact regarding grounds of arrest was also
discussed in so many cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court like Pankaj
Bansal vs. Union of India and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
1244 , Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8
SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Hariyana and Anr. reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 269.
16. Admittedly, this Court earlier considering the materials on
record rejected the bail application of the accused but since the informant
himself admitted that the grounds of arrest in writing was not communicated
to the accused so at this stage I have no other option save and except to
consider the bail application of the accused in view of the direction passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforenoted cases.
17. The action of the informant shows total non-compliance of the
direction of the Supreme Court. So considering the materials on record the
accused Sri Bapi Das may be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, who must be a public servant, with condition
that till conclusion of trial the accused shall attend Court once in a week in
addition to his normal days, in default, the accused shall remain in jail as he
was before.
18. Earlier in so many cases directions were given to I/Os to
comply the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India time to time. But it
appears to this Court that inspite of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
the same has not been followed by PW-1 in this case which emerges from
his evidence and thus it appears a serious lapse on the part of the informant
to discharge his duties in accordance with law. The matter needs to be
brought to the knowledge of the higher authority of the police.
19. Learned PP Mr. Datta, representing the State be asked to
communicate the order of this Court to the office of DGP, Tripura for
information and necessary action towards prevention of violation of the
direction and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
20. Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a
copy of this order.
21. However, the accused shall attend Court as ordered so that the
case can be disposed of by the Ld. Trial Court at an earliest. In case of
violation, the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach to the Court for
cancellation of the bail granted to the accused.
A copy of this order be supplied to the Learned Counsel for the
applicant.
With these observations, this present bail application is
disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2026.04.13 19:07:22 +05'30'
Satabdi
