Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 127
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(Crl.) No.03 of 2025 Sri Shibu Chakraborty, S/o. Sasadhar Chakraborty, Resident of Kathaltali, Ranirkhamar, P.O. Madhupur, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799003.
…….. Petitioner(s) For and on behalf of Sri Rajesh Acharjee, S/o. Lt. Chanu Acharjee, Aged about 38 years, Resident of Vill- Shibjoy Jamadar Para, P.S. Budhjungnagar, Dist- West Tripura.
…….. Accused Person – V e r s u s –
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Investigation Officer of Agartala GRPS Case No.34 of 2025, Agartala GRPS Police Station, Agartala Railway Station, Agartala, West Tripura.
…….. Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, Advocate.
Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date o f hearing and delivery : 15 th May, 2025.
of Judgment & Order Whether fit for reporting : YES HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
The necessity of communicating grounds of arrest in writing, as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution, is imperative to uphold the rights of the accused.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under Sections 20(b)(ii)
(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, the petition challenges the legality of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Facts of the Case: Petitioner claims the arrest of Sri Rajesh Acharjee lacks proper grounds and violates constitutional rights.
Findings of Court:
The Court finds no merit in the petition's claims.
Issues: The Court considers whether grounds of arrest were properly communicated and whether the detention exceeded 24 hours.
Ratio Decidendi: The court elaborates that written communication of grounds of arrest is crucial, referencing several precedents.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, learned counsel and Mr. Kundan Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajib Saha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
The Case Diary (for short, CD) has been produced by learned Addl. P.P.
[2] The petition is filed by the petitioner on behalf of Sri Rajesh Acharjee, who was arrested on 1.4.2025 in connection with GRPS case No.34 of 2025, registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act and since then he has been in custody. The allegations as borne in the FIR lodged by Sri Bishnu Pada Das, SIPF under GRPS is that on 1.4.2025 at around 08.55 hours, he received specific secret information regarding bringing of some contraband items by some unknown persons for loading the same inside the PARCEL VAN at Agartala Station. Then accordingly after obtaining permission from IPF/Agartala, he alongwith other officers and staffs of GRP Agartala, set on an ambush at Agartala Railway station and at around 11.45 hours, one goods carrier truck bearing No-AS 01 JC 4571 was found coming through the approaching road of unloading point Line No.13 of Agartala Railway Station yard. On arrival at Agartala Railway Station, 3 persons got down from the said vehicle and hurriedly unloaded some cartoon boxes from the said vehicle. Thereafter, the informant detained those 3 persons for verification. On spot interrogation, they disclosed their names as Prasenjit Nag, Rajat Debbarma and Rajesh Acharjee. According to the informant, on asking they offered contradictory and dissatisfactory statements regarding their presence there and finally admitted that they were carrying some contraband goods by said vehicle. It is also noted by the informant in the FIR that after complying necessary legal formalities, a search was conducted and ultimately they recovered total 58.535 kg of contraband Ganja from 28 Nos. of packets and then those persons were also arrested.
[3] Challenging the said arrest of Rajesh Acharjee, the present writ petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India , to declare said arrest to be illegal, ultra vires and in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India .
[4] Mr. Dhyani, learned counsel, challenged the arrest of the petitioner, mainly on two points: firstly, that written communication regarding grounds of such arrest was not made available to the arrestee; and secondly, that he was kept in detention for more than 24 hours, in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India . Learned counsel, referring to the arrest memo as submitted by the Investigating Officer in the Court below, submits that against the column for ‘grounds of arrest’, it was written as- "information was given to his" and nothing more. According to learned counsel, the ground of arrest ought to have been specifically mentioned in the said arrest memo, as it touches the very fundamental right of the arrestee to take his proper defence against such arrest and detention. In support of his submission, Mr. Dhyani, learned counsel also relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT OF DELHI), (2024) 8 SCC 254 , wherein the relevant paragraphs as relied on are extracted hereunder:
“19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation woul
