The Tripura High Court granted bail to a man accused in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that his arrest was illegal as the police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest. The court said the lapse violated the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1), making continued custody untenable.
The order came in a bail application filed on behalf of Ramu Kumar, who has been in judicial custody since June 2024 following his arrest at Agartala Railway Station with alleged contraband. The court allowed his release despite the serious nature of the charges under the NDPS Act.
The matter was heard by Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, who examined whether the arresting authority had followed mandatory legal requirements at the time of arrest. The defence focused on a single but crucial issue: that the accused was never clearly told why he was being arrested.
After hearing both sides, the High Court agreed that the prosecution failed to show compliance with constitutional safeguards.
According to the prosecution, the accused was detained on June 17, 2024, during a routine check at Agartala Railway Station. Railway Protection Force personnel claimed to have recovered around 21 kilograms of suspected ganja from his possession.
An FIR was registered under provisions of the NDPS Act dealing with commercial quantity offences, and a chargesheet was later filed. Since his arrest, the accused remained behind bars while trial proceedings were pending.
Counsel for the accused argued that the arrest itself was unlawful because the grounds of arrest were never communicated in a meaningful manner. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the defence said merely filling out an arrest memo was not enough, especially when the accused was illiterate.
The State opposed the bail plea, pointing to the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband. However, the prosecution conceded that apart from the arrest memo, there was no material on record to show that the grounds of arrest were separately or clearly explained to the accused.
A bench led by Justice S. Datta Purkayastha noted that the accused was illiterate and had only affixed his thumb impression on the arrest memo. The court found that the column mentioning “grounds of arrest” vaguely stated “reference to the above,” without spelling out the reasons.
The judge referred to settled law that when an accused alleges violation of Article 22(1), the burden lies on the arresting authority to prove that the grounds of arrest were effectively communicated in a language the person understands.
The court observed that the police ought to have exercised greater care, particularly after realising that the accused could not read or write.
Holding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate proper communication of the grounds of arrest, the High Court declared the arrest illegal. On that basis, the court allowed the bail application.
The accused was directed to be released on a bond of ₹1 lakh with a local surety, subject to conditions including not leaving the court’s jurisdiction, not influencing witnesses, and attending trial regularly.
With these directions, the bail application was disposed of.
Case Title: Sri Sanjit Kumar vs The State of Tripura
Case Number: BA No. 17 of 2026
Court: High Court of Tripura, Agartala
Date of Order: 22 January 2026
