[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Rakesh Ray vs The State Of Tripura on 17 March, 2026
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
BA No.50 of 2026
Sri Rakesh Ray,
S/o Sri Hardev Ray, resident of Rasulpur, Fateh, Vaishali, Bihar -
844122.
............Petitioner(s);
For and on behalf of
Sri Raj Kumar Ray,
S/o Sri Hardev Ray, resident of ABC Tarun Nagar, Bylane-3, P.S.
Bhangagarh, Guwahati, District - Kamrup, Assam.
........... Accused person;
VERSUS
The State of Tripura
......Respondent(s);
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate,
Mr. Subham Majumder, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
_O_R_D_E_R_
17/03/2026
Heard learned counsel of both sides.
[2] The bail petition has been filed seeking bail of Sri Raj
Kumar Ray, in connection with Mungiakami PS Case No. 2025 MGK
006, subsequently registered as Special (NDPS) 61 of 2025 under
Sections 22(b)(ii)(c), 29 of NDPS Act, pending in the Court of
learned Special Judge (NDPS), Court No.2, Khowai, Tripura. The
accused was arrested on 14.07.2025.
[3] Allegation in the FIR lodged by the SI of police Sri
Kasnarai Reang that on that day he along with other police
personnel left for routine vehicle checking duty at 41 Mile Naka
Point of National Highway-8 and there they detained one container
vehicle bearing no.HR-39-D-0522 for checking purpose.
Ultimately, on search, after breaking a hidden chamber in the
upper portion of the cabin of said vehicle, recovered total 29
packets wrapped with brown colour adhesive tape containing
suspected ganja and one driving licence in the name of present
accused. On measurement, the total weight of such ganja was
found to be 207 kg and 200 grams. Police accordingly arrested the
said accused. He was produced before the learned Special Judge
on 15.07.2025 seeking police remand. The investigating officer
also submitted arrest memo and copy of grounds of arrest before
the learned Special Judge at that time.
[4] Learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh, submits that though
a memorandum of ground of arrest was prepared by the arresting
police officer but it was never supplied to the accused and he was
completely in dark about the grounds of his arrest and thereby the
police authority has violated Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
[5] Learned counsel Mr. Sankar Lodh, relies on several
decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in cases of
Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India and others [(2024) 7
SCC 576]; Prabir Purkayastha versus State (NCT of Delhi)
[(2024) 8 SCC 254]; Kasireddy Upender Reddy versus State
of Andhra Pradesh and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228];
Ahmed Mansoor & others versus the State, represented by
Assistant Commissioner of Police and another [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2650]; and Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of
Maharashtra and another [(2026) 1 SCC 500]. According to
learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh, for violation of said provision of
Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS, the arrest of the accused as
well as his subsequent remands have been rendered illegal.
Therefore, the bail may be granted to him.
[6] Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta, however,
submits that along with the copy of arrest memo which contained
the signature of the accused, copy of grounds of arrest was also
supplied to him before he was produced before the learned Special
Judge and he being fully conversant with the grounds of arrest,
participated in remand proceeding before the learned Special
Judge.
[7] This Court has considered the submissions of both the
sides. From the record, it appears that one memorandum of
grounds of arrest was prepared by the arresting officer but there
was no acknowledgment of the accused person regarding receipt
of said grounds of arrest nor his signature therein was taken.
[8] In Vihaan Kumar versus State of Haryana and
another [(2025) 5 SCC 799] it was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that when an arrestee pleads before a Court that
grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the
compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police.
[9] In Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra
and another [(2026) 1 SCC 500] it was observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a person is not informed of the
grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the
violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, rendering the arrest illegal. It was further observed that the
obligation to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee is thus,
not just a mere procedural formality, instead it flows from the
fundamental right of personal liberty which sets the further course
for protection from the oppressive restrictions imposed upon the
free movement in the society of an arrestee during remand.
[10] Thus, when such allegation of non-furnishing of grounds
of arrest is brought forward from the side of arrestee, it is for the
arresting officer to show compliance of such provision of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS.
Here it appears that the arresting officer though prepared the
grounds of arrest and also forwarded the same to the learned
Special Judge, there is no proof that same was furnished to the
accused. The petitioner through affidavit has stated that ground of
arrest was not supplied either to the accused or any of his family
members.
[11] Therefore, two conclusions are possible - (i) that no
such ground of arrest was at all communicated to the accused,
rather to give an artificial show of discharge of the obligation of
informing the same to the arrestee, he has forwarded a prepared
copy to the learned Special Judge; or (ii) that he has duly handed
over the same to the arrested accused, but has failed to obtain the
signature of the arrestee in the document. When law imposes
burden on the arresting officer to prove the communication of
grounds of arrest to the arrestee, it is his duty to show that it was
actually communicated. In the instant case as discussed above,
there is no satisfactory proof that grounds of arrest was actually
communicated to the arrested person.
[12] It is a case concerning huge quantity of contraband
items and time and again this Court is observing that such drug
trafficking has already cast a serious deleterious affect in the
society and the State is being sufferer tremendously. Therefore, it
is quite surprising as to how a police officer arresting a person
involved in trafficking of such huge quantity of contraband item
can commit such omission or mistake. It is not a case that he was
not aware of the settle principle of law about communication of
grounds of arrest and that is why he has also prepared the same
in a separate sheet but prima facie Court is constrained to observe
that he has been negligent in either handing over the said grounds
of arrest to the arrestee or has negligently missed to obtain his
signature in the said document irresponsibly, regarding the arrest
illegal.
[13] In view of the above, the bail prayer is allowed. It is
ordered that the accused-Sri Raj Kumar Ray, may go on bail on
furnishing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees two lakh] only with
one surety of the like amount or Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakh]
only with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned Special Judge, Khowai immediately with the following
conditions that:
(a) the surety should be a resident of Tripura;
(b) the accused shall not leave the State of Tripura without
prior permission of the learned Special Judge;
(c) he will regularly give his attendance once in a week
before the learned Special Judge, Khowai till the said condition is
relaxed by learned Special Judge for any special reason;
(d) he will not try to influence or terrorize any of the
witnesses of the case;
(e) he will not try to make any contact with any witnesses
of the case directly or indirectly;
(f) he will regularly attend the Court to face trial;
(g) he will provide the address of his stay in Tripura and his
mobile phone number to the learned Special Judge and also to the
police officer who has investigated the case.
[14] The instant application is accordingly disposed of.
Return the Trial Court record.
Communicate copy of this order forthwith to learned
Special Judge, Khowai.
Copy of this order be communicated to Director General
of Police for taking note of this remissness on the part of the
arresting officer, as prima facie found.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Munna MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2026.03.18 16:38:13 +05'30'
