[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Ichmatara Begam vs The State Of Tripura on 11 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A. No.48 of 2026
Smt. Ichmatara Begam,
wife of Sri Ripad Choudhury of village-
Barmura, North Paharpur, P.S. Jatrapur,
District- Sepahijala, Tripura
..... Applicant(s)
On behalf of
Sri Ripad Choudhury
son of late Jamal Miah of village- Barmura,
North Paharpur, P.S. Jatrapur, District-
Sepahijala, Tripura
..... Accused person(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura
........Respondent(s)
For the Applicant (s) : Mr. H. Laskar, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
ORDER
11.03.2026
Heard both sides.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of accused, Ripad
Choudhury, in connection with Jatrapur P.S. Case No.31 of 2025 registered
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The accused was arrested on 07.07.2025. According to the learned
counsel, he is in custody since then.
The FIR was lodged by one Ajoy Baran Saha, Sub-Inspector of police to
the O/C Jatrapur P.S. on 07.07.2025 that on the secret information, he along
with others police officials, in presence of O/C Jatrapur P.S., raided the house
of the accused and recovered 24 Kg. dry ganja along with 750 numbers of
bottles of Eskuf syrup containing 100 ml. each from his house, which were kept
hidden beneath the earth, inside of his dwelling hut.
The police accordingly arrested him. The said FIR was registered as
Jatrapur P.S. case No.31 of 2025. The police thereafter, proceeded with the
investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused person
under Sections 20(b)(ii)C/21(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. In the charge-sheet,
it is also mentioned that the residence of the accused is situated under
reserved forest area and he is occupying 0.10 acres of land therein.
Learned counsel, Mr. H. Laskar, appearing for the accused applicant
prays for bail mainly on the three grounds viz. firstly, that the grounds of arrest
was not duly communicated to the arrestee in terms of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution and other relevant decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this
regard rendering the arrest illegal; secondly, that the land where his house is
situated was a khash land and he was not the owner of that land and thirdly,
that from 7th July, 2025, he is in jail and there had been prolonged incarceration
of the accused applicant. Learned counsel also submits that if the accused is
released on bail, he will regularly attend the court to face the trial and will not
terrorize and influence the witnesses of this case.
Mr. R. Datta, learned PP appearing for the State producing the CD has
seriously opposed the prayer for bail and submits that through the field
verification done by the investigating officer in collaboration with Tehshil
authority, it is found that the accused was the owner of the alleged hut
wherefrom the contraband items were seized and there are prima-facie
materials that he was possessing the said contrabands.
Considered the submissions of both sides.
It appears from the records that the plea of non-furnishing of grounds of
arrest was raised before the learned Special Judge, Sepahijala District,
Sonamura and the learned Special Judge vide order dated 11.02.2026 after
examining the records, categorically observed that apart from the grounds of
arrest mentioned in the arrest memo, separate grounds of arrest was also
prepared by the investigating officer in English which was duly received by the
accused. This Court has also found that the grounds of arrest is clearly
mentioned in a separate sheet of paper which was received by the accused
and he put his signature in English form and therefore, the first contention as
raised by the learned counsel of the accused is not convincing.
So far the second ground is concerned, the investigating officer has
collected the report from the Tehshildar of Dhanpur Revenue Circle, wherein
the Tehshildar has categorically mentioned that the area of 0.10 acres wherein
the residence of the present accused is situated, falls within the land of Forest
Department. However, the accused is residing in the said house. From the
statements recorded by the investigating officer of some other witnesses, like
Inspector, Subrata Debnath, Sub-Inspector, Bijoy Kr. Chakraborty, Constable,
Debasish Debnath and women constable, Rosana Begam, it appears that the
accused was caught red handed in the said house along with contraband items
when those were recovered after digging the earth. Therefore, there are prima-
facie materials of recovery of commercial quantity of dry ganja from the
possession of the present accused. Who is the owner of the house or the land,
are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case under Sections
20(b)(ii)C/21(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, rather it is more important as to from
whose possession those contraband items were recovered.
The third ground of bail regarding the prolong incarceration as raised
from the side of the accused, also cannot be taken into consideration in view of
rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Considering all these aspects, the bail prayer is rejected and
accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.
Return the CD to learned PP along with a copy of this order.
Reconsign the records of the learned trial Court along with a copy of
this order immediately.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2026.03.12 17:17:07 +05'30'
Sujay
