Smt. Susmita Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 1022 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smt. Susmita Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura on 25 February, 2026

                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                            B.A. No.14 of 2026
Smt. Susmita Chakraborty
W/O Sri Jayanta Debnath,
R/O-A.D. Nagar Road No.14, Chowrangi para, P.S:Amtali,
P.O.-Bishalgarh, District-West Tripura.
                                                            ---- Applicant

On behalf of
Sri Jayanta Debnath,
S/O Sri Rajani Debnath,
Resident of A.D. Nagar Road No.14, Chowrangi Para,
P.S.:Amtali, District-West Tripura.
                                                      ---- Accused person
                                  Versus
The State of Tripura
                                                       ----Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s)        :      Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv,
                               Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul, Adv.
For Respondent(s)       :      Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Date of hearing         :      23.02.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order        :      25.02.2026
Whether fit for
reporting               :      YES


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
                            Judgment & Order

Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta 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.

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is

filed for granting bail to the accused person in custody namely

Jayanta Debnath who is incarceration in jail in connection with

Amtali P.S. case No.118 of 2024 corresponding to S.T.(T-

I)/3/2025, now pending before the Court of Learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura under Section

127(1)/118(2)/109/3(6) of BNS.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. Ratan

Datta first of all drawn the attention of the Court submitted that

earlier this present accused and others were granted bail by the

Learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the prosecution challenged the

order of bail before this Court and this Court by order dated

23.06.2025 cancelled the bail granted to the accused persons by

the Learned Trial Court and directed the accused persons to

surrender before the Learned Trial Court and accordingly, the

accused persons surrendered before the Learned Trial Court.

Thereafter, the accused persons in custody further filed another

bail application before this Court and after hearing both the sides,

by order dated 28.10.2025 in B.A. No.93 of 2025 and B.A. No.96

of 2025, this Court rejected the bail application with a direction to

the Learned Trial Court to dispose of the case in accordance with

law giving top priority. It was further submitted by Learned

Counsel that by this time, 3 witnesses out of 24 numbers of

witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

Thereafter, Learned Counsel submitted that in this case 'grounds

of arrest' was not communicated to the accused in writing in

compliance of different observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court time to time. Furthermore, the accused is lodging in custody

for a considerable long period of time and since there is no

material against the accused in the FIR and during investigation

also, the IO could not collect any materials against him showing

his implication with the alleged offence, so, Learned Counsel urged

for releasing the accused on bail in any condition.

Reliance was placed upon one judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 [titled as

Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another] wherein in

para No.21, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:

"21. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a charge-sheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge-sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned Senior Counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge-sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22."

Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted that

considering the materials on record and for absence of the

'grounds of arrest', the accused needs to be released on bail in

any condition.

Learned Counsel also referred another citation of

Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 [titled as

Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another]

wherein in para Nos.56 and 62, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed

as under:

"56. It would not be out of context now to refer to an obligation which has been imposed on a person making arrest, as provided under Section 50-A read in relation to Section 50CrPC (now Sections 48 and 47 of BNSS 2023 respectively), to inform the arrestee of his right to indicate his relative, friend or such other person for the purpose of giving information with regard to his arrest.

Simultaneously, a duty has also been cast on the person making arrest to forthwith thereafter inform of such arrest with reasons and the place where the arrested person is being held to the such indicated person. The police officer/person making any arrest shall make an entry of the fact as to who has been informed of such an arrest in a book to be kept in the police station. Further protection in this regard is reflected when a duty has been cast on the Magistrate to satisfy himself, when the arrestee is produced before him, that the above requirement stands complied with. This requirement is in addition to the rights of an arrestee to be made aware of the grounds of arrest.

62. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the Magistrate."

Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted that in

view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court,

the accused needs to be released from the custody henceforth.

Lastly, Learned Counsel also drawn the attention of the

Court referring another order dated 17.12.2025 passed by a

coordinate bench of this Court in B.A. No.123 of 2025 and

submitted that the principle of said judgment can also be applied

in this case.

4. The submission of Learned Counsel for the accused

person in custody was strongly objected by Learned P.P.

representing the prosecution. Learned P.P. taking part in the

hearing submitted that initially all the accused persons were

granted bail by the Learned Trial Court and thereafter, the State

of Tripura challenged the order of bail granted to the accused

persons namely Santanu Sen @ Rupan, Jayanta Debnath, Dilip

Banik @ Suman, Dipan Banik @ kenchu, Pinku Sen @ Suman,

Papon Chakraborty and this Court after elaborate hearing by order

dated 23.06.2025 in B.A. No.12 of 2025 dismissed the bail

granted to the accused persons by the Learned Trial Court and

directed the accused person to surrender before the Learned Trial

Court but affirmed the bail granted to accused Piklu Sen alias

Suman and Papon Chakraborty. Thereafter, the accused persons

again preferred another application before this Court which was

numbered as B.A. No.93 of 2025 and B.A. No.96 of 2025 and this

Court after elaborate hearing of both the parties rejected the bail

application filed by the said accused persons and directed the

Learned Trial Court to dispose of the case giving top priority

keeping it in mind that the accused persons are lodging in jail. It

was further submitted that from the date of production and

thereafter, on several occasions, the accused persons were

produced before the Learned Trial Court but they never agitated

the issue of 'grounds of arrest' before the Learned Trial Court. So,

at this belated stage, there is no scope to consider the ground as

submitted by Learned Counsel for the accused persons in custody.

In this regard, Learned P.P. also referred another

citation of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India reported in

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 [titled as State of Karnataka Vs.

Sri Darshan Etc.] in a similar nature of this case wherein in para

No.20.1.7, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:

"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 even if

it is assumed that the 'grounds of arrest' was not communicated

still the same is a curable defect and cannot by itself, warrant

release on bail and for that, the accused in custody is not entitled

to get bail.

Learned P.P. further submitted that this accused in

custody is directly FIR named and during investigation, sufficient

materials were collected by IO against this accused person and

others, so, there is no scope to consider the bail application filed

by the accused and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6. I have heard both the sides at length. In this case, the

prosecution was set into motion on the basis of an FIR laid by one

Badal Saha to O/C, Amtali P.S. alleging inter alia that on the day

of Biswakarma Puja, after watching Biswakarma Puja his son

Subankar Saha was returning back to home along with his friend

by riding his scooty in the late night and when said Subankar and

his friends reached in between Loknath and Rajib Chowmuhani,

that time, two groups were involved in quarrel with each other.

Suddenly, persons of one of the groups attacked his son with

deadly weapons from the front and cut his face, mouth and throat,

resulting which his son sustained severe bleeding injuries on his

person and fell down on the earth and his accompanying friends

were also tried to rescue his son and further they also sustained

injury. Immediately thereafter, his son was referred to Hapania

Hospital from where he was further referred to GBP Hospital and

from the report of X-ray, it appears that his son sustained fatal

injuries. On the basis of the said FIR, the O/C, Amtali P.S. on

18.09.2024 at about 1325 hours registered Amtali P.S. case

No.118 of 2024 under Section 127(1)/118(2)/109/3(6) of BNS,

2023. By this time, the victim succumbed to his injury. This

present accused is directly FIR named and during investigation, he

was produced before the Court along with other accused persons

on 26.09.2024. During that period and thereafter also, the

accused was all along represented by his Learned Defence Counsel

and he never agitated this issue of 'grounds of arrest' before the

Learned Trial Court.

7. However, it appears to this Court that by order dated

07.01.2025, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Agartala,

West Tripura granted bail to all the accused persons and prior to

that, Learned J.M. 1st Class,(Court No.2), Agartala, West Tripura

by order dated 04.01.2025 granted interim bail to all the accused

persons till their production before the Court of Learned Sessions

Judge on 07.01.2025 and later on, on commitment they were

granted regular bail by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2,

Agartala, West Tripura which was later on cancelled by this Court

by order dated 23.06.2025. In such a situation, it appears to this

Court that the 'grounds of arrest' as projected by Learned Counsel

for the accused person in custody cannot be a valid ground to

consider his release on bail and the accused has already

extinguished his right to be released on bail on the 'grounds of

arrest'. So, on the plea of 'grounds of arrest', I do not find any

scope to release the accused on bail.

8. In addition to that, after going through the citations

referred by Learned Counsel for the accused in custody, it appears

to this Court that the first judgment i.e. Vihaan Kumar(supra)

was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment referred by

Learned P.P. i.e. Sri Darshan(supra) and the second judgment

is prospective, as such, the principles of the said judgments

cannot be applied in this case. Furthermore, since the accused has

already been granted bail by the Learned Trial Court which was

later on cancelled by this Court after detailed hearing, so, the plea

that the 'grounds of arrest' was not communicated to the accused

in writing is not a solid ground for the accused in custody to be

released on bail.

9. From the record, it appears that prosecution before the

Learned Trial Court has adduced 3 witnesses and in this case,

probably, 24 numbers of witnesses were cited by IO in the charge-

sheet. So, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, all

endeavour should be taken by the Learned Trial Court to dispose

of the case giving top priority keeping it in mind that the accused

persons are languishing in jail.

10. In view of the above, the present bail application

deserves no consideration and accordingly, the same stands

rejected.

Send down the record of Learned Trial Court along with

a copy of this order.

JUDGE

AMRITA DEB AMRITA DEB Date: 2026.02.26 14:25:38 -08'00' Deepshikha