The court found that the communication of arrest grounds was sufficient, denying bail under the NDPS Act.

Order

11/08/2025 This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed for granting bail to the accused Mantu Yadav who is lodging in jail in connection with Agartala GRPS Case No.3/2025 under Section 20(b(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act .

[02] Heard Learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh appearing on behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta representing the State-respondent. As ordered earlier, we have received the record from the Learned Trial Court and also Learned P.P. has produced the Case Diary.

[03] At the time of hearing, Learned counsel for the accused in custody, Mr. S. Lodh drawn the attention of this Court that the present accused is lodging in jail w.e.f.12.01.2025 and by this time, the IO has laid charge sheet (2)

against the present accused in custody and another and the case is now posted for discussions on framing of charge. Learned counsel further drawn the attention of this Court referring the contents of the FIR and submitted that the prosecution in this case could not make out any case to detain the accused in jail custody and furthermore, at the time of arrest no ground of arrest was communicated to the accused.

[04] He also drawn the attention of the Court referring the order dated 18.07.2025 delivered by Learned Special Judge Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala and submitted that the Learned Special Judge also over looked the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vihaan Kumar versus State of Haryana and Another reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 which was not permissible in the eye of law because the decision of the Supreme Court is binding upon all Courts across the country. He further submitted referring different paras of the judgment in Prabir Purkayastha versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and submitted that no grounds of arrest was communicated to the accused and as such, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the accused is required to be released on bail.

[05] Learned counsel for the accused in custody again drawn the attention of the Court referring notice issued to the accused under Section 50 of NDPS Act and submitted that on bare perusal of the same it would be crystal clear that the requirement of Section 50 was not complied with by the IO.

[06] Learned counsel for the accused in custody further drawn the attention of the Court referring the arrest memo annexed with the bail application and submitted that from the arrest memo, it is clear that the grounds of arrest was not communicated to the accused in custody. So, in summing up his submission, Learned counsel urged before the Court for releasing the accused on bail in any condition.

[07] On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State- respondent strongly opposed the submission made by Learned counsel, Mr. S. Lodh and submitted that from the contents of the FIR it appears that the grounds (3)

of arrest was duly communicated to the accused and his family members. He further submitted that the contraband item were directly seized from the possession of the accused on the relevant date and time. It was further submitted that from the arrest memo it will be found that the copy of the same was furnished to the accused and the ground of arrest as per arrest memo was duly communicated to the wife of the accused. As such, at this stage, there is no scope on the part of the accused to take the plea that the accused was not duly informed the ground of his arrest.

[08] Referring the contents of the case diary, Learned P.P. submitted that there is direct allegation against the present accused in custody and if at this stage, he is released on bail, then there is every possibility of the accused to abscond and there will be very least scope to complete the trial. He also made another alte