AGARTALA, India, Feb. 12 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Jan. 12:

[1] Heard learned counsel of both sides.

[2] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rajib Saha, has produced the Case Diary.

[3] An FIR was lodged by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police namely, E. Subrata Singha on 21.02.2025 that on receipt of secret information of bringing of certain contraband items by some unknown persons in Agartala-Dharmanagar Local train and after complying the provisions of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, 1985, he detained one person at Agartala Railway Station carrying one hand bag, one backpack and one trolley bag with him who disclosed his name to be Rajkumar Sarkar i.e. the present accused applicant and on search, total 21 kg 750 grams (approx) of dry cannabis (ganja) was recovered from him. He was, thereafter, arrested on the same date i.e. on 21.02.2025 and since then he is in custody.

[4] The police after investigation also submitted the charge-sheet against him under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

[5] Learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh, for the applicant submits that despite series of decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also by this Court, the arrest was made in utter violation of the same, and the ground of arrest was not informed to the accused rendering his arrest and detention thereafter illegal and ultra-vires. Learned counsel, therefore, has prayed for bail stating that with any stringent condition bail may be granted to him.

[6] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. Saha, however, opposes the bail prayer submitting that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused person for which he was charge-sheeted by the police and trial has also commenced. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that on earlier occasion at the initial stage of his arrest he never raised any such plea before the learned Special Judge.

[7] However, regarding the point as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that except the arrest memo, there is no other material to show that the ground of arrest was communicated in any other form to the present accused.

[8] According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the arrest memo itself shows that ground of arrest was illegal possession of contraband goods and therefore, the IO has complied with the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

[9] Considered the submissions of both sides.

[10] Earlier in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was held that ground of arrest must be communicated to the accused in writing and even in Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra and another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066] it has been categorically held that constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all the statutes including offences of IPC, 1860 and such grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv3MpXU8BMUPha98J3ccuq7vAebjp2EItbDY6AGhoMm8X&caseno=BA/6/2026&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010000292026&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.