[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Shri Bhagirath Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 23 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B. No.14 of 2026
&
B.A. No.32 of 2026
In A.B. No.14 of 2026
1. Shri Bhagirath Debbarma
son of Shri Indrajit Debbarma, resident of
Dhanirampur, Ward No.03, P.O.
Matinagar, P.S. Sonamura, District-
Sepahijala, Tripura
2. Shri Bhabendra Debbarma
son of Shri Indrajit Debbarma, resident of
Dhanirampur, Ward No.03, P.O.
Matinagar, P.S. Sonamura, District-
Sepahijala, Tripura
......... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura
In B.A. No.32 of 2026
Smt. Jagat Shree Debbarma,
Daughter of Shri Indrajit Debbarma, wife
of Sri Suman Debbarma, resident of
Dhanirampur VTC, P.O. Matinagar, P.S.
Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of:
Sri Indrajit Debbarma
son of late Radha Kumar Debbarma,
resident of Dhanirampur VTC, P.O.
Matinagar, P.S. Sonamura, District-
Sepahijala, Tripura
...... Accused person(s)
-Versus-
The State of Tripura
...... Respondent(s)
For the petitioner/applicant : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
Mr. S. Majumder, Adv.
For the respondent : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
Date of hearing : 27.02.2026
Date of delivery of
judgment and order : 23.03.2026
Yes No
Whether fit for reporting :
✔
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The Anticipatory Bail (A.B. No.14 of 2026) and Bail
Application (B.A. No.32 of 2026) are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment, as same have arisen out of a
common police case.
[2] Heard learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh and Mr. Subham
Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners. Also
heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for
respondent-State.
[3] In B.A. No.32 of 2026, the accused, Shri Indrajit Debbarma
has sought for his bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, (in short, BNSS) 2023 in connection with Sonamura
P.S. Case No.2025 SNM 065 dated 29.07.2025 subsequently
renumbered as Special (NDPS) 01 of 2026 pending in the learned court
of the Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura where charge-sheet
is laid under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
[4] In A.B. No.14 of 2026, 2(two) sons of said accused, Indrajit
Debbarma, namely Sri Bhagirath Debbarma and Bhabendra
Debbarmma, have sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with same
case.
[5] As per FIR, on the basis of secret information on 28.07.2025,
the police raided the house of accused, Indrajit Debbarma and recovered
141 kg of suspected ganja including plastic drums and sacks. Thereafter,
police arrested the accused, Indrajit Debbarma and seized those items. At
that time, as per the FIR, the police found that his two sons had fled away.
Police investigated the case and ultimately laid charge sheet against the
father and his two sons under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act,
1985. Now, the father is in custody from his arrest on 29.07.2025, and as
submitted at the Bar, warrants have been issued by the learned Special
Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura against the sons, after a charge-
sheet was laid by the police showing them as absconders. Therefore, the
two sons of the accused, Indrajit Debbarma i.e. the petitioners of A.B.
No.14/2026 have prayed for pre-arrest bail.
[6] During hearing of B.A. No.32 of 2026 with respect to accused,
Indrajit Debbarma, learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh, tried to show some
instances that order was passed by learned Special Judge granting bail to
the accused person in some other cases for the reason that grounds of
arrest were not communicated to the arrestees in their own understandable
language whereas in the present case learned Special Judge on the
identical situation has taken a contra view rejecting his bail application
observing that grounds of arrest was properly communicated to the
accused. According to learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, same standard is not
being maintained by the learned Special Judge while appreciating whether
grounds of arrest is being communicated in an effective way to the
accused persons so that they can understand the same.
[7] Learned counsel also submits that in the present case
grounds of arrest was not communicated to the accused in terms of the
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah
versus State of Maharashtra and another, (2026) 1 SCC 500.
[8] Regarding the bail application of two sons of the said accused
petitioner, learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, submits that despite the warrants
were issued against them by the learned Special Judge, the bail
applications are maintainable and there is no universal rule that when a
warrant has been issued, it will exclude the jurisdiction of the Court to
exercise discretion under Section 482 of BNS. Learned counsel, Mr. Lodh,
in this regard relies on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Asha Dubey versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
5633 wherein it was observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that in the
event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all
cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for
the grant of anticipatory bail.
[9] Learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, also relies on a decision of
Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Deepankar Vishwas versus State
of M.P. [I.L.R. 2025 M.P. 1477 (DB)] wherein the High Court observed that
where the proceedings under Sections 82/83 & 299 Cr.P.C. were initiated
against accused and/or he was declared proclaimed offender, the
application for anticipatory bail would be maintainable. However, such
consideration and grant of anticipatory bail to the accused would depend
upon the gravity and seriousness of the offence involved therein and such
power should be exercised in a very cautious manner and in extreme and
exceptional cases only in the interest of justice.
[10] Next point as raised by learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, is that
there is, except the statement of the father in police custody, no other
incriminating material in the record to connect both the sons with the
alleged crime. In this regard, learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, also relies on a
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Krishna Mohan
Reddy versus the State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598
wherein at paragraph No.53, it was observed as under:
"iv) Where such police statement of an accused is
confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26
respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional
statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not
hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with
the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence
Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an
accused which is in the form of a confession is per se
inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on
such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial.
Since such confessional statements are rendered
inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act,
the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no
reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of
an accused to implicate another co-accused."
[11] Learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, further relies on a decision of this
Court in case of Najmin Akter versus the State of Tripura [B.A. No.121
of 2025] decided on 16.12.2025 wherein followings were observed:
"[5] On consultation of the case diary, it appears that
except the interrogation report of the accused persons in
that case as recorded by investigation officer, prima facie,
there is no other material that they had any previous
meeting of mind to attract Section 29 of the NDPS Act for
taking into consideration the whole quantity of ganja
seized from all of them. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel also
relies on a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of P Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. the State of Andhra
Pradesh; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 wherein at paragraph No.
53 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a police
statement of an accused which is in the form of a
confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance
whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the
stage of bail (emphasis laid) or during trial.
[6] In view of above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court,
said statement of the accused persons recorded by the
investigating officer during their custody cannot even be
taken into consideration at the time of consideration of the
bail petition. Prima facie, in absence of any other materials
to attract Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the total quantity of
the ganja so seized from all the three accused persons
cannot be taken into consideration collectively at this
stage. Admittedly, each one of the accused persons were
found carrying intermediate quantity of the ganja. Moreso,
in the seizure list, the investigating officer also separately
mentioned the quantity of such contraband items seized
from each of the accused persons and not the total
quantity. The accused person is in custody for about 90
days. Considering all these aspects, the bail application is
allowed."
[12] Learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, also relies on a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State (By NCB) Bengaluru versus
Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another, (2022) 12 SCC 633 wherein
after considering the materials available in that case, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court observed as under:
"11. Having gone through the records along with the
tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on
behalf of the petitioner NCB and on carefully perusing the
impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State,
2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of
India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433] , [Munees Kavil
Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , [Abu
Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] , [Mohd.
Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar
1294] , [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka,
2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] passed in each case, it
emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1
and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents
themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it
appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was
available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to
connect the respondents with the allegations levelled
against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not
been denied by the prosecution that except for the
respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569 of 2021, none of the
other respondents were found to be in possession of
commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as
contemplated under the NDPS Act.
12. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh v. State
of T.N. [Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., (2021) 4 SCC 1 : (2021)
2 SCC (Cri) 246] , that a confessional statement recorded
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible
in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth
of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the
petitioner NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary
statements of the respondents or the co-accused under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for
overturning the impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad
Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516] , [Mohd.
Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar
3433] , [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 3431] , [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine
Kar 3517] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 1294] , [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of
Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] releasing them on
bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the
allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of
the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the
stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16-9-2019
[Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine
Kar 3516] , 14-1-2020 [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020
SCC OnLine Kar 3433] , 16-1-2020 [Munees Kavil
Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , 19-12-
2019 [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] and
20-1-2020 [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka,
2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] passed in SLP (Crl.) No.
arising out of Diary No. 22702 of 2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454
of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465 of 2021, SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 1773-
74 of 2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080 of 2021 respectively.
The impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad
Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516] , [Mohd.
Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar
3433] , [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 3431] , [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine
Kar 3517] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 1294] , [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of
Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] are, accordingly,
upheld and the special leave petitions filed by the
petitioner NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the
respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless."
[13] Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that
when warrant is already in force against the petitioners of A.B. No.14 of
2026, the petition for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. To gain support to
his contention, he also relies on a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others versus State of Bihar and
another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary
power and though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the
rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power,
the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim
protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to
miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent
as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. It
was also observed that at any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation
is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power.
Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail
in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s)
continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such
grant.
[14] Learned public prosecutor, further relies on another decision
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of State by the Inspector of Police
versus B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073 wherein it was observed
that in case of recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the
Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused, then
what to talk about anticipatory bail and more so, when the accused is
alleged to be having criminal antecedents. Learned Public Prosecutor
however, submits that there is no material in the record that antecedents of
the two sons are bad.
[15] Learned Public Prosecutor again relies on another decision of
this Court in case of Sri Apu Ranjan Das versus the State of Tripura
[A.B. No.01 of 2026] decided on 04.02.2026 wherein this Court rejected
the bail of the petitioner on the ground that there were certain materials
against him in the form of extra-judicial confession and the accused was
previously engaged in another case where 29,900 nos. of bottles of Eskuf
cough syrup were allegedly recovered by the police. The facts of said case
are distinguishable with the facts of the case in hand.
[16] This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties
and has also gone through relevant materials placed in the record.
[17] So far the plea of accused, Indrajit Debbarma in B.A. No.32 of
2026 is concerned, it is found that Indrajit Debbarma was arrested on
29.07.2025 i.e. prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and in the arrest memo, against the
caption 'the grounds of arrest', it is mentioned that total 141 kg of
suspected dry ganja was recovered from the dwelling house of the
accused, Indrajit Debbarma. The said arrest memo was signed by him.
Separate document containing of such grounds of arrest in details was
also prepared by the investigating officer and was furnished to the accused
mentioning the details of the said recovery of contraband items from his
house. Therefore, this Court prima-facie does not find any materials to
accept the contention of the accused about the alleged violation of Article
22(1) of the Constitution or provision of Section 47 of the BNSS of non-
furnishing of grounds of arrest to him. Therefore, the bail application of
Indrajit Debbarma does not deserve any consideration as it is a case
concerning commercial quantity of contraband items which were recovered
from his house in his presence.
[18] Now, regarding the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the two sons of
said accused, Indrajit Debbarma, it appears that the informant in his
statement recorded by the investigating officer stated that on interrogation,
Indrajit Debbarma had confessed his guilt and also had disclosed that his
above said two sons were involved in this case and they were also living in
the same house. If the confessional statement of the accused made before
the investigating officer is kept out of consideration but what appears is
that both the above said two sons are residing with their father in the same
house wherefrom the said contraband items were recovered. In support of
the same, the investigating officer has also collected copies of the ROR
and ration card which show that said Indrajit Debbarma was living with his
wife, above said two sons and wife of Bhagirath Debbarma in the same
house.
[19] Some of the witnesses, like constable, Swarga Mohan
Debbarma, constable, Subrata Das, women S.I., Ratna Das, women
constable, Ayesha Khatun and SPO, Durjadhan Debbarma have stated
that after they cordoned the house of Indrajit Debbarma, they found him in
the house and on asking, he confirmed his identity but his two sons i.e.
Bhagirath Debbarma and Bhabendra Debbarma were not found in the
house and seeing the police party, they were able to flee away from the
house. They also stated that said Indrajit Debbarma and his two sons had
violated the provisions of NDPS Act for illegal storing, purchasing and
procuring of huge quantity of suspected dry ganja without any valid
documents.
[20] Another witness, namely Purba Sinha, Deputy Magistrate &
Collector, Sonamura stated that on spot interrogation, Indrajit Debbarma
confessed his guilt and also confessed that his said two sons were also
involved in the matter and they were living in the same house. She also
stated that, therefore, said Indrajit Debbarma, his two sons and their
associates were involved in illegal smuggling, carrying, storing, selling,
purchasing and procuring of such huge quantity of contraband of dry ganja
which reflects strong conspiracy.
[21] Now, whether the accused, Indrajit Debbarma was solely
responsible for storing those contraband items in his house or his both
sons were only responsible for the same or whether all of them were
responsible for the same are the matters of final adjudication in the trial.
Prima-facie there are materials that all the accused are residing in the
same house wherefrom such contraband items were recovered. Though it
is also a fact that in the same house, the wife of Indrajit Debbarma and
wife of Bhagirath Debbarma are also living but they have not been arrayed
as accused in this case, however that fact alone does not justify to draw an
inference in terms of Section 37 of the Act that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that both the sons of the accused, Indrajit Debbarma
are not guilty of such offences.
[22] Therefore, the next question arises whether, as per decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Deepankar Viswas (supra)
and Srikant Upadhyay (supra), this case can be treated as a case of
exceptional one to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the said two sons
of accused, Indrajit Debbarma i.e. the petitioners of A.B. No.14 of 2026.
After the charge-sheet was laid on 31.12.2025, the learned trial Court also
issued warrant of arrest against both the sons of Indrajit Debbarma vide
order dated 27.01.2026. According to this court, such benefit of pre-arrest
bail cannot be extended to the petitioners of A.B. No.14 of 2026 in view of
the discussions made hereinabove. Therefore, their prayers for pre-arrest
bail are also liable to be rejected.
[23] As indicated earlier, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel incidentally
also submitted that consistency is not being maintained in the court of the
learned Special Judge while appreciating the fact as to whether the
grounds of arrest are properly communicated to the arrested person. In
support of his submissions, he also refer two orders of the learned Special
Judge passed on 09.02.2026 in Special (NDPS) 46 of 2025 and
18.02.2026 in case No.NCB/Agartala/Crime 10 of 2025.
[24] From the order dated 09.02.2026 passed in Special (NDPS)
46 of 2025, it appears that accused was arrested on 17.04.2025 and
learned Special Judge observed that after going through the 'grounds of
arrest' prepared in two separate sheets, nowhere it was found that the
same was communicated in writing in the language understandable by the
accused. The accused person and his wife singed in the grounds of arrest
(arrest memo) in Bengali and nowhere it was written that the grounds of
arrest was communicated to the accused in his language.
[25] In the order dated 18.02.2026 passed in case
No.NCB/Agartala/Crime 10 of 2025, learned Special Judge observed that
the grounds of arrest in Bengali was not submitted before the Court when
the accused was produced and it created a doubt. Therefore, the Court
was of the view that the arrestee had failed to communicate in writing to
the arrestee, the grounds of arrest in the language which he understands
to make it as purposeful one and the bail was granted. Learned Special
Judge also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). The document containing the grounds of
arrest bears the date 07.01.2026 which was prepared in English.
Therefore, it can be presumed that the accused was arrested in that case
on or around 07.01.2026.
[26] Anyway, these orders are not challenged before this Court in
the present proceedings and therefore, it will not be proper to make any
comment on those orders. However, it is reiterated that regarding the
matter of communication of 'grounds of arrest', several judgments are
already passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on different occasions and
learned Special Judge has also mentioned some of those judgments in the
said orders. Some judgments are also given prospective effect by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, while dealing with the issues, all the
judgments as rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are required to be
applied properly in the true spirits which will help in maintaining the
consistency and clarity in the decision making process of the Court.
[27] In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no merit in
the Anticipatory Bail (A.B. No.14 of 2026) and Bail Application (B.A. No.32
of 2026). Therefore, both the petitions are rejected and disposed of
accordingly.
Reconsign the records of the learned trial Court along with a
copy of this judgment and order immediately.
Return the CD to learned PP.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2026.03.23 16:44:51 +05'30'
Sujay
