Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 13342

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
, J
The State – Appellant
Versus
Sri Badal Miah – Respondent
Application for Cancellation of Bail No. 2024 AMT 104

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. Raju Datta
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Sen Choudhury

The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to Section 37 of the NDPS Act when considering bail applications, citing misapplication by the lower court.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Section 37 - Cancellation of bail - The application was filed for cancellation of interim bail granted to the accused. The learned Special Judge had granted bail without proper consideration of the provisions under Section 37. The court found that the release of the accused was not justified due to ongoing investigation and the gravity of the offence. (Paras 5-15).

(B) Criminal Procedure - Bail Application - The court emphasized that the terms under which bail under the NDPS Act may be granted must be carefully scrutinized to prevent potential misuse or interference with ongoing investigations. The learned Special Judge’s orders were found to be unreasoned and lacking proper judicial scrutiny. (Paras 12-15).

Facts of the case:
The case pertained to narcotics possession, and the bail was granted on the premise that nothing was found in the respondent's possession, which was challenged by the prosecution highlighting procedural misapplications.

Findings of Court:
The court found the lower court's orders were flawed and that not adequately considering the prosecution's materials caused potential misapplication of the law.

Issues: The determining factors involved the misinterpretation of Section 37 concerning the implications of ongoing investigations against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the grant of bail was unreasoned, highlighting the lack of proper consideration of the rigorous standards set forth under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Result: The application for cancellation of bail is allowed.

Table of Content
1. application filed for cancellation of bail due to ongoing investigations. (Para 1 , 6)
2. arguments made for and against the bail decision by prosecution and defense. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court reviewed statutory provisions and case law relevant to bail under ndps act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. final review led to cancellation of bail based on misapplication of the law. (Para 15)

1. This is an application under S.483(3) read with S.528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for cancellation of interim bail granted to the respondent - accused namely, Sri Badal Miah vide order dated 06.09.2024 in connection with case No.2024 AMT 104 under S.21(b) / 22(c) / 23/25/27/27(A) / 29 of NDPS Act .

2. Heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State - petitioner and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Sen Choudhury appearing on behalf of the respondent - accused.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned P.P. first of all drawn the attention of the Court that on the basis of an FIR laid by one Om Prakash Swami, Assistant Commandant of 42 Bn BSF to O/C Amtali Police Station on 19.08.2024, this present case was registered and in course of investigation, the principal accused, Ibrahim Miah was arrested and taken into custody as a considerable quantum of contraband item of commercial quantity was found under his possession. Thereafter, in course of investigation, the I.O. of this case produced the accused under arrest before the Court of Learned Special Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura on 06.09.2024 and on that day the Learned Special Judge without application of proper mind granted interim bail to the said respondent - accused till 30.09.2024 and after that on 30.09.2024 his period of interim bail was further extended till 05.11.2024 and on that day, Learned Special Judge further extended the period of interim bail till 18.12.2024 and on 18.12.2024 Learned Special Judge again extended the period of interim bail till 25.01.2025 with an observation that S.37 of NDPS Act would not attract in this case. Learned P.P. in course of hearing submitted that the Learned Special Judge without application of proper mind misinterpreted and misread the provision of S.37 of NDPS Act and allowed the bail to the respondent - accused which was illegal and unwarranted by law and legally not permissible in the eye of law.

4. Learned P.P. further submitted that there are sufficient materials showing implication of the present accused with the alleged crime but simply on the ground that "nothing was found under his possession" by the I.O. cannot be a sole ground for granting bail to him in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different cases. So, in summing up, Learned P.P. submitted that the order passed by Learned Special Judge was without non - application of mind, as such the interference of the Court is required and urged for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Learned Special Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in granting interim bail to the respondent - accused and referred few citations.

5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel representing the respondent - accused submitted that on 06.09.2024 the respondent - accused was produced under arrest before the Learned Special Court and on that day after hearing both the sides and considering the Case Diary, Learned Special Judge granted interim bail to the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the FIR there was no implication of the respondent - accused showing his involvement with the alleged crime and in course of investigation no contraband item was found under his possession for his detention in custody. So, Learned Special Judge considering the materials on record rightly granted bail to the respondent - accused by order dated 06.09.2024 which was thereafter extended time to time and finally by the last order dated 18.12.2024, Learned Special Court came to an observation that S.37 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 13342

TRIPURA HIGH COURT, JThe State – AppellantVersusSri Badal Miah – RespondentApplication for Cancellation of Bail No. 2024 AMT 104

The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to Section 37 of the NDPS Act when considering bail applications, citing misapplication by the lower court.

Cases Referred (2)

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
, J
The State – Appellant
Versus
Sri Badal Miah – Respondent
Application for Cancellation of Bail No. 2024 AMT 104