Saha Alam vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 52 Tri

Tripura High Court

Saha Alam vs The State Of Tripura on 16 January, 2026

                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA

                        BA No.01 of 2026

Saha Alam,
S/o Sri Gyan Mohammad, R/o Village & P.O. Ghunghrala, P.S. Hafizpur,
District- Hapur, U.P., Pin-245101.
                                  ............Applicant on behalf of
                                  accused person in custody(s);
Jubair,
S/o Sri Gyan Mohammad, R/o Village & P.O. Ghunghrala, P.S. Hafizpur,
District- Hapur, U.P., Pin-245101.
                             ........... Accused person In-custody;
                           -Versus-
 The State of Tripura
                                              ........Respondent(s);

along with BA No.02 of 2026

Nazir Hossain, S/o Sri Amjad Ali, R/o Village & P.O. Shukarur Kuthi, P.S. Sahebganj, District - Koochbihar, West Bengal, Pin - 736168.

............Applicant on behalf of accused person in custody(s);

Nazrul Islam, S/o Sri Amjad Ali, R/o Village & P.O. Shukarur Kuthi, P.S. Sahebganj, District - Koochbihar, West Bengal, Pin - 736168.

........... Accused person In-custody;

-Versus-

The State of Tripura ........Respondent(s);

along with

Mohd. Zaid, S/o Sri Karrar Ahamed, R/o Village-Radhana Inayatpur, P.S. Kithore, District-Meerut, U.P., Pin-250104.

............Applicant on behalf of accused person in custody(s);

Sarfraj Ahmed, S/o Sattar, R/o House No.147, Sector-9, Shastrinagar, P.S Nanchandi, District-Meerut, U.P., Pin-250004 .

........... Accused person In-custody;

-Versus-

The State of Tripura ........Respondent(s);

For the Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate, Mr. E. L. Darlong, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor.

Date of hearing                   :   09.01.2026.
Date of Judgment & Order          :   16.01.2026.
Whether fit for reporting         :   YES      NO
                                               √




      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
                       JUDGMENT & ORDER

All the above three bail applications have arisen from the

same police case bearing No. 2025 JTP 034 registered under Sections

22(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. All the cases were heard

together and are being disposed of by this common order.

[2] Heard Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel

assisted by Mr. E. L. Darlong, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor,

appearing for respondent-State.

[3] Sub-Inspector of Police namely Bijoy Kumar

Chakraborty, on 31.07.2025, lodged the suo motu FIR that on that

day, on the basis of a secret information that one red colour

chevrolate (AVEO-LS) vehicle (numberless) was parked at Jatrapur

Para, Bashpukur, on the south side of the field of the office of the

Inspector of school loaded with contraband NDPS items like yaba

tablets, he wrote down the information and complied with other

formalities under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, entered the said fact

in GD entry No.4 dated 31.07.2025 and then arrived at the spot

with police force. The BSF authority also accompanied them.

Inspector, Sitikanta Bardan, O/C of Jatrapur police station, also

arrived there. Nobody was found inside the said vehicle and

according to him, before searching the vehicle he tried to collect

independent witnesses of Government Officials but none was found

available. Thereafter, he prepared a search memo and conducted

the search of the vehicle, and therefrom 14,000 (Fourteen

thousand) nos. of yaba tablets of total weight 1.490 kg contained

in blue coloured plastic packets kept in yellow coloured plastic bag

were recovered. During preliminary investigation, it was also

revealed that three persons carried those items by said vehicle and

parked it beside the field at about 0200 hours and entered into the

house of one Harun Miah of that locality. Thereafter, they detained

the said three accused persons namely (1) Sarfraj Ahmed, (2)

Jubair and (3) Nazrul Islam, from the said house and later on

arrested them. The above three bail applications are filed by said

three detained accused persons. Since their arrest, they are in

custody.

[4] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik,

submits that as per the arrest memo all the said three accused

persons were arrested at 04:30 pm which was seriously doubtful

as according to the FIR itself they were detained in the early

morning from the said house. By referring to the air tickets,

learned senior counsel also submits that all of them came to

Agartala on 30.07.2025 from Delhi by flight and stayed at Hotel

Grand Zuri, Airport Road at Agartala. But from the said hotel, their

friend Harun Miah picked them up, and therefore, after staying for

a few hours in the hotel, they had to check out therefrom. Learned

senior counsel also strenuously argued that nothing was found

from the conscious possession of the accused persons and despite

they were arrested from the house of Harun Miah, no allegation

was lavelled by the police against said Harun Miah for harbouring

them which creates further doubt about their complicity.

[5] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, contends that the

ground of arrest was not in proper sense communicated to the

accused persons rendering the arrest illegal as in specific term it

was not informed to them that they were arrested on the

allegation of selling of said tablets. Learned senior counsel also

placed a media clip of one news channel to show that at the spot

of the seizure itself the police authority tore the packets

compromising the sanctity of the seizure. According to him, no

money was also recovered from the accused persons though

according to the police they brought those tablets for selling

purpose. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, also argues that if

at all they would sell the same, certainly there would be some

amount of money in their possession. In the prescribed format of

information of ground of arrest, the time of furnishing such

information was not noted by said officer, as indicated by learned

senior counsel.

[6] Finally, Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, also

refers to a GD Entry No.5 of 0445 hours wherein receipt of such

secret information etc. was recorded by the said police officer

though in his FIR he mentioned the same to be GD Entry No.4

incorrectly.

[7] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, also takes the

Court to the pre-search memo prepared by said SI, Bijoy Kumar

Chakraborty, but at the bottom of the same he has signed the

same as 31.09.2025 in place of 31.07.2025. He also refers to the

search memo of the vehicle of the said date wherein said Bijoy

Kumar Chakraborty further put the date beneath his signature to

be 31.05.2025 which is inconsistent.

[8] According to the learned senior counsel, all these

incorrect inscription of dates and absence of mention of time about

ground of arrest create a serious suspicion that those were

artificially prepared later on to build up a case falsely against the

accused persons. According to him, Section 36 of BNSS was not

complied with and therefore, the same also rendered the arrest

illegal. Finally, learned senior counsel has prayed for bail of above

said three accused persons on any condition.

[9] Learned senior counsel also relies on some decisions in

the matter of conscious possession and brief reference of the same

are being made hereinbelow:

(i) In case of Bharat Chaudhary versus Union of India

[2021 Supreme (SC) 811], the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted

bail to the accused cancelling the order of the High Court on the

ground that the Assistant Commercial Examiner could not do the

quantitative analysis of the samples for want of facilities and

therefore, it could not be said that he was in possession of

commercial quantity of psychotropic substances and even in the

seized tablets some were found to be herbs/medicines meant to

enhance male potency and not any contraband item and further,

nothing was seized from his office or residence at the time of

search.

(ii) State of West Bengal versus Rakesh Singh @

Rakesh Kumar Singh [2022 Supreme (SC) 592] - In this

case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that no contraband

article was recovered from the respondent or from any place under

his exclusive control. Therefore, a doubt arose regarding complicity

about trafficking of contraband items and said facts diluted the

rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

(iii) Sahil Firoz Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra

[2024 Legal Eagle (SC) 1189] - In this case, the appellants

were accused in cases involving minor offences and one accused

was aged about 18 years with no antecedents and there was no

recovery of any contraband item. Another accused was a woman

from whom no contraband was also allegedly recovered and all the

offences except NDPS violation were minor in nature. The main

accused was also granted regular bail. Considering thus, the

interim order granting bail was made absolute.

(iv) Dipesh Majumder & others versus State of Tripura

[2019 Legal Eagle (TRI) 752] - In this case, accused persons

were arrested with the allegations of trafficking and possession of

narcotics. However, no contraband item was found at their

premises during searches conducted by the police. The accused

persons were also implicated for financing, illicit trafficking and

harbouring of the offenders and also for abetment and criminal

conspiracy. After considering the materials placed in the said case,

it was observed by the High Court that there was no proof before

the court to hold that the accused-persons were involved in any

culpable act or that they had possessed commercial quantity or

less quantity of narcotic and psychotropic substance and ultimately

the bail was granted to them.

(v) Jiauur Rahman @Babu @Dhan versus State of

Assam [2023 Legal Eagle (GHC) 39] - In this case, the High

Court observed that no contraband item was recovered from the

possession of the accused except an amount of Rs.80,000/-.

However, 66 grams of alleged heroin were allegedly recovered

from the possession of one co-accused and 104 grams of heroin

from the possession of another co-accused. Considering above said

materials and considering the period of detention, the court

observed that no further custodial detention was required for

further investigation of the case and ultimately bail was granted to

him.

(vi) Gulshan Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh

[2024 Legal Eagle (HP) 439] - In this case, the petitioner was

arrested during the police raid whereas contraband was recovered

from the room of a co-accused with no direct evidence linking the

petitioner to the possession of said contraband items. Ultimately

bail was granted to the accused.

(vii) In case of Suryapratap Singh versus State of

Rajasthan [2024 Legal Eagle (RAJ) 2269] though the

petitioner was arrested but no contraband item was recovered

from him and his contention was that he was implicated solely

based on the interrogation report of the co-accused and there was

likelihood of delay in trial though charge-sheet was submitted.

Therefore, bail was granted to him.

(viii) Naresh versus State of Rajasthan [2025 Legal

Eagle (RAJ) 2316] - In this case, the accused persons were

arrested in connection with recovery of 55.526 kg Ganja from

conscious possession of four other persons, and nothing was

recovered from them. The High Court granted bail to the accused

persons on the ground that challan was filed and trial was

supposed to take sufficient long time but there was no discussion

about Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in said case.

(ix) Pratheesh versus State of Kerala [2023 Legal

Eagle (KER) 166] - In this case, the accused was arrested in

said case with allegation of transporting 82 kg of ganja in a tourist

bus, but no contraband was seized from him directly and nothing

was found in his possession. One bag was seized also from the

driver's cabin wherein the covid vaccination certificate and an ATM

card of the accused were also found. In that contexts, the High

Court observed that rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, could

not be attracted against the accused person.

(x) Joy Mitra versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi

[2025 SCC OnLine Del 3016] - In this case, the High Court

observed that the prosecution was unable to pin any financial trail

or conversations/chats thereby establishing a link between the

recoveries and the applicants. The primary materials against the

applicants which was available in the record, was that their details

were used on the seized parcels, and no other material was

brought forth to draw a nexus between the applicants, the

recovery and their complicity in the offence. Finally, the High Court

granted bail to them as there was no material to link the accused

persons with the recovery of commercial quantity of contrabands.

(xi) Rabindra Debnath for and on behalf of accused

Uttam Debnath versus State of Tripura [B.A. No.13 of 2021]

decided on 05.03.2021 - In this case, a coordinate Bench of this

Court granted an interim bail to the accused on the ground of

illness of his wife and minor son aged about seven years with a

direction to the accused to appear before the learned Special

Judge on completion of the period of interim bail, and learned

Special Judge was also directed to consider his bail application on

merit without being influenced by the said order of the Court. In

said order, reference was also made to another decision of Apex

Court in case of Kulwinder Singh & another versus State of

Punjab [(2015) 6 SCC 674] wherein further reference was made

to another decision of the Apex Court in case of Gunwantlal

versus State of M.P. [(1972) 2 SCC 194]. In Gunwantlal

(supra), it was observed that possession in a given case need not

be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and

control over the article in case in question, while person whom

physical possession is given, holds it subject to that power of

control.

(xii) Kanchaman Yonjan versus State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) [Bail Application No.2845/2023] decided on

08.07.2024 - In this case, the Delhi High Court granted bail to an

accused considering the clean antecedents of the accused and also

on the ground of absence of independent witnesses and prolonged

delay in the trial. While doing so, the High Court also relied on a

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Muslim

versus State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 352],

wherein it was observed that grant of bail on the ground of undue

delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the

Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to

offences under the NDPS Act too. The High Court also relies on a

decision of the Apex Court in case of Rabi Prakash versus State

of Odisha [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109], wherein it was

observed that the prolonged incarceration, generally militates

against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the

conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created

under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

[10] In support of his submission that the ground must be

communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she

understands and non-compliance thereof render the arrest and

subsequent remand illegal, learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik,

further placed reliance on Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India

and others [(2024) 7 SCC 576]; Prabir Purkayastha versus

State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254]; Vihaan Kumar

versus State of Haryana and another [(2025) 5 SCC 799];

Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra and another

[2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356]; Sajul Islam Purakayastha

versus State of Tripura [2025 SCC OnLine Tri 478]; Anita

Nama versus State of Tripura and another [2025 Legal

Eagle (TRI) 264].

[11] Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta, on the other

hand, referring to the materials placed in the case diary submits

that there are sufficient incriminating materials against all the

three accused persons that they had their conscious possession of

above said seized articles and therefore, rigour of Section 37 of

the NDPS Act, will apply. Regarding certain discrepancy of the

dates mentioned beneath the signature of said informant in the

pre-search memo etc. as indicated above, learned Public

Prosecutor contends that these were mere unintentional errors

committed due to un-mindfulness of the informant and the other

persons signed in those documents put their respective date to be

the correct date i.e. 31.07.2025.

[12] Learned Public Prosecutor also relies on a decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow versus Md.

Nawaz Khan [(2021) 10 SCC 100], wherein it was observed

that the fact of absence of possession of contraband on the person

of the accused does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required

under Section 37(1)(2)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

[13] The Court has considered the submissions of both sides

and has gone through the decisions as referred by the parties. The

Court has also taken note of all the relevant materials placed in

the case diary.

[14] Though it was strenuously argued by the learned senior

counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, that there was no material that the accused

persons were in conscious possession of the alleged recovered

items but it appears that there are prima facie materials in the

case diary that all the said three accused persons went to that

area with above said vehicle and as they were new in that area

they took shelter in the house of said Harun Miah in the midnight

after coming out from the said vehicle. Therefore, prima facie,

there is nothing to infer that they were not in conscious possession

of the said contraband items.

[15] So far the plea as raised from the side of accused that

grounds of arrest were not properly informed, the Court is also not

convinced with such plea as the arresting authority informed them

both in Hindi and in Bengali language respectively that on the

basis of a written FIR lodged by SI, Bijoy Kumar Chakraborty that

400 nos. of psychotropic narcotic tablets of total 1.490 kg were

recovered and they were arrested as prima facie materials were

found against them that they were directly involved therein and

they were illegally doing business of the same. These informations

are sufficient to enable the accused persons to understand the

reasons of their arrest in connection with said case and to take

their defence accordingly.

[16] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, contends that it

was not categorically informed to them that they were involved in

the matter of selling of the same, but such grounds appear to be

insubstantial.

[17] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, also raises the

point that Section 36(b)(i) of the BNSS was not complied with

which provides that the arresting officer will prepare a

memorandum of arrest which shall be attested by at least one

witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a

respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made. In

the relevant column of the said arrest memo, it is found that same

was kept blank by the arresting authority and therefore such issue

was raised. However, from the said arrest memo itself it is also

prima-facie established that their close relatives were informed by

the arresting authority over phone. The arresting authority has

also mentioned those names in the arrest memo. Therefore, such

plea is also not acceptable. Though it was argued from the side of

the applicants, as noted earlier, that the pre-search memo and

search memo contained different dates not in resemblance with

the alleged date of seizure but on reading of those memorandums

it appears that except said SI, Bijoy Kumar Chakraborty all other

persons who signed in the pre-search memo and search memo

specifically mentioned the date 31.07.2025 in correct from and the

seizure list also reflects the correct date of seizure. Therefore, such

mistakes on the part of the said police officer in preparing those

memorandums mentioning different dates, at this stage does not

create any grave doubt enabling the accused persons to get the

bail.

[18] From the video clip as produced by learned senior

counsel, it appears that the outer packet was being opened by the

police but if same would not have been done, the police authority

would not be able to understand as to what were there inside the

inner packets.

[19] In view of the above discussions, it appears that there

is no merit in the bail applications and, consequently, all the bail

applications are rejected.

Re-consign the case diary to the learned Public

Prosecutor with copy of this order.

Also, send a copy of this order to learned Special Judge.

JUDGE

Munna MUNNA SAHA

Date: 2026.01.16 16:57:57 +05'30'