AGARTALA, India, Feb. 24 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Jan. 22:

[1] Heard learned counsel of both sides.

[2] The bail application has been pressed by Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel on a single point that ground of arrest was not communicated to the accused in terms of the decision of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others; (2024) 7 SCC 576 pronounced on 03.10.2023 and other subsequent judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel also refers to the FIR submitted in this case by one police officer namely, Bimal Nama on 17.06.2024 alleging that on that day when he was discharging his duties at Agartala Railway station he detained the petitioner Ramu Kumar on suspicion and on search total 21 kg of suspected ganja in 18 packets were recovered from him thereafter.

[3] The FIR was registered as Agartala GRPS case No.66 of 2024 under Sections 22(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.

[4] The police authority accordingly investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the sole accused Ramu Kumar under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. Since after his arrest on 17.06.2024, the accused petitioner is in custody. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel also submits that earlier said ground was taken before learned Special Judge on 04.12.2025 but learned Special Judge did not pass any order on that point and casually rejected the bail application observing on the ground that the accused was repeatedly changing his engaged advocate and moreover, charge sheet was filed. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, therefore, earnestly prays for bail on the ground of violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

[5] Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P., however, opposes the prayer submitting that there are prima facie materials against the accused person that he was carrying commercial quantity of contraband items and the investigation also culminated with the similar findings. Learned P.P. further submits that though in the FIR it is mentioned that grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused and his family members but except the arrest memo, no other document is found available in the record that any other separate communication was made by the investigation officer to the accused in this regard.

[6] Considered the submission of both sides and also gone through the relevant records.

[7] It is found that the accused is an illiterate person and therefore, his thumb impression was taken on the arrest memo and in the arrest memo, ground of arrest was shown as "reference to the above". For better demonstration, the entire arrest memo is extracted hereunder:

"ARREST MEMO

1. District- West Tripura, P.S. Amtali, Year 2024 FIR No/other reference RPF/POST/AGTL, DDE No.23 Dated 17/06/24

2. Date and time of arrest: On 17/06/24 at about 16.10 hrs.

3. Place of arrest : At Parcel Office, Agartala Rly Station

4. Particulars of the person arrested

a) Name : Ramu Kumar

b) Father's/Husband's name: S/O Sri Mangal Shaw

c) First alias

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63KvwKuCP0YLt28HePJ%2BKmbtGajcIYHY8wSv6QZioDB4CAE&caseno=BA/17/2026&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010000802026&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.