Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 250
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Biswajit Palit, J
Smt. Shilpi Deb Das on behalf of Sri Bapi Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
BA 67 / 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Investigation and Trial - Evidence - Search and Seizure - Mandatory compliance with search procedure and documentation - Failure to observe procedural protocols creates significant lacunae in the prosecution’s case. (Paras 5, 13, 18)
Facts of the case:
An application for bail was moved by an accused person in custody for alleged possession of contraband cough syrup found in a vehicle. The prosecution contended that no new grounds existed for reconsideration of bail. However, during cross-examination, the informant witness admitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the accused in writing, and the mandated videography of the search process was not conducted.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to adhere to the mandatory constitutional requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing. These procedural lapses constitute a serious violation of legal directives and justify a re-evaluation of the detention.
Issues: Whether the failure of investigating authorities to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing and the absence of proper search documentation justify the release of the accused on bail during the ongoing trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional mandate to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrest person is peremptory. Non-compliance with this requirement, combined with a failure to strictly adhere to established search procedures, undermines the validity of the detention, warranting the grant of bail.
Result: Bail granted.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hare Krishna Bhoumik, Rakhu Das
For the Respondents: Raju Datta
This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed for releasing the custody accused on bail, namely, Sri Bapi Das in connection with case No. 2025PTL013, now Case No. GR No. 100/2025 corresponding to NDPS 07/2025 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 192(A) of the M.V. Act.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Hare Krishna Bhoumik, appearing on behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Learned PP Mr. Raju Datta, appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
3. Taking part in the hearing Learned Counsel Mr. Bhowmik has drawn the attention of the Court that the accused is incarcerated in jail for the last 9 months and 23 days. Initially, he had filed one bail application before this Court, which was rejected by this Court and by this time the IO has submitted the charge sheet against him and trial has commenced. From the evidence of the informant PW-1, it is clear that the ground of arrest was not communicated in writing to the accused which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in series of cases.
4. It was further submitted that PW-1 in course of his examination has very specifically stated that either in the FIR or in any statement made to the IO, he has not disclosed from which part of the vehicle or from which place the contraband items were seized.
5. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the cross examination of the said witness wherein he stated that notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not mention the time when it was given nor it bears any signature of the accused. Further, he has stated that the ground of arrest in written manner was not communicated to the accused and the videography of the search process in compliance to Section 105 of BNSS was not complied with.
6. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhowmik has further drawn the attention of the Court referring to Annexure-1 i.e. the seizure memo wherein it was mentioned that the place of seizure was at Pecharthal PS Naka. Referring to the same, the Learned Counsel submitted that since no contraband item was directly seized from the possession of the accused, so it is crystal clear that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and on conclusion of trial there will be very least scope to punish him in this case. So in summing up, Learned Counsel urged for releasing the accused on bail on any condition. Finally, Learned Counsel submitted that since the prosecution has failed to ensure the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case, so there is no scope to detain the accused furthermore in custody.
7. On the other hand, Learned PP Mr. Datta, submitted that on the point of ground of arrest earlier his bail application was rejected by this Court. So, at this stage no new grounds could be projected on behalf of the accused to consider his bail application. He also drawn the attention of the Court that the judgment delivered by this Court in BA Application No.04/2026 wherein on similar ground the bail application was rejected.
8. It was further submitted by Learned PP that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) was pronounced after registration of the FIR in this case. So the principle of the said judgment cannot be applied in the case.
9. Heard both the sides.
10. Considered.
11. In this case, the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of an FIR laid by one S.I. Lalruata Darlong to O/C Pecharthal PS alleging inter alia, that on 21.06.2025 on the basis of a secret information that some huge quantum of contraband items will be coming from Guwahati by a bus bearing No. AS 01 LC 1412, the informant informed the O/C Pecharthal PS and GD entry was made; thereafter, the matter was informed to the higher authority of the Police and after that at Pecharthal Naka point the police took position for detaining the vehicle bearing No. AS 01 LC 1412 and search was conducted. Prior to that pre-search memo was prepared in presence of witnesses. After searching the veh
