AGARTALA, India, May 16 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on April 13:

1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed for releasing the custody accused on bail, namely, Sri Bapi Das in connection with case No. 2025PTL013, now Case No. GR No. 100/2025 corresponding to NDPS 07/2025 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 192(A) of the M.V. Act.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Hare Krishna Bhoumik, appearing on behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Learned PP Mr. Raju Datta, appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

3. Taking part in the hearing Learned Counsel Mr. Bhowmik has drawn the attention of the Court that the accused is incarcerated in jail for the last 9 months and 23 days. Initially, he had filed one bail application before this Court, which was rejected by this Court and by this time the IO has submitted the charge sheet against him and trial has commenced. From the evidence of the informant PW-1, it is clear that the ground of arrest was not communicated in writing to the accused which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in series of cases.

4. It was further submitted that PW-1 in course of his examination has very specifically stated that either in the FIR or in any statement made to the IO, he has not disclosed from which part of the vehicle or from which place the contraband items were seized.

5. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the cross examination of the said witness wherein he stated that notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not mention the time when it was given nor it bears any signature of the accused. Further, he has stated that the ground of arrest in written manner was not communicated to the accused and the videography of the search process in compliance to Section 105 of BNSS was not complied with.

6. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhowmik has further drawn the attention of the Court referring to Annexure-1 i.e. the seizure memo wherein it was mentioned that the place of seizure was at Pecharthal PS Naka. Referring to the same, the Learned Counsel submitted that since no contraband item was directly seized from the possession of the accused, so it is crystal clear that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and on conclusion of trial there will be very least scope to punish him in this case. So in summing up, Learned Counsel urged for releasing the accused on bail on any condition. Finally, Learned Counsel submitted that since the prosecution has failed to ensure the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case, so there is no scope to detain the accused furthermore in custody.

7. On the other hand, Learned PP Mr. Datta, submitted that on the point of ground of arrest earlier his bail application was rejected by this Court. So, at this stage no new grounds could be projected on behalf of the accused to consider his bail application. He also drawn the attention of the Court that the judgment delivered by this Court in BA Application No.04/2026 wherein on similar ground the bail application was rejected.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv8UJlwToKkmVBi3ZZU%2Bh5QNJHRgS4NGfRD9xpl%2Fz0ZPx&caseno=BA/67/2026&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010005622026&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.