Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 340
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S. Datta Purkayastha, J
Bhagirath Debbarma – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
A.B. No.14 of 2026|B.A. No.32 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Narcotics
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability - When non-bailable warrants have been issued by a trial court, the extraordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised with extreme caution, reserved only for exceptional cases where the interests of justice demand, particularly in cases involving serious offenses involving commercial quantities of contraband. (Paras 8, 9, 13)
(C) Evidence - Confession of an accused - A confessional statement made to police is inadmissible per se and cannot be relied upon to implicate co-accused or form the basis for denying bail; however, evidence established through residency documentation and independent witness statements regarding the recovery of contraband from a shared dwelling provides sufficient material to establish a prima facie case for bail consideration. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
An individual in custody, alongside two family members evading service of warrants, applied for bail and anticipatory bail respectively, following the seizure of a large quantity of prohibited narcotics from their shared residence. The defense contended that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated and that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence other than inadmissible confessional statements to implicate the family members residing in the same house.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the records clearly reflected the proper communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused. Regarding the plea for pre-arrest bail, the court observed that while an outstanding warrant does not create a total embargo, the nature of the recovery and the prima facie material regarding shared occupancy in the house where the contraband was seized justified the denial of relief.
Issues: The main issues were whether the failure to furnish grounds of arrest in a specific manner invalidated the arrest and whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant bail under the specific circumstances of contraband recovery despite existing warrants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that constitutional rights regarding arrest information are satisfied when there is evidence of effective communication. Furthermore, the court reiterated that for serious narcotics cases, discretion for anticipatory bail must be exercised sparingly, and evidence of shared residence in the premises from which the contraband is recovered can constitute sufficient grounds for a prima facie case against occupants, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of police confessions.
Result: The bail and anticipatory bail applications are rejected.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Lodh, S. Majumder
For the Respondents: R. Datta
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of bail applications in ndps act case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in understandable language. (Para 6 , 7 , 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. maintainability of anticipatory bail after issuance of arrest warrant. (Para 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 22) |
| 4. evidentiary value of custodial confessions and connecting co-accused. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final adjudication and rejection of bail applications. (Para 16 , 27) |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The Anticipatory Bail (A.B. No.14 of 2026) and Bail Application (B.A. No.32 of 2026) are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, as same have arisen out of a common police case.
[2] Heard learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh and Mr. Subham Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent-State.
[3] In B.A. No.32 of 2026, the accused, Shri Indrajit Debbarma has sought for his bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (in short, BNSS) 2023 in connection with Sonamura P.S. Case No.2025 SNM 065 dated 29.07.2025 subsequently renumbered as Special (NDPS) 01 of 2026 pending in the learned court of the Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura where charge-sheet is laid under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 .
[4] In A.B. No.14 of 2026, 2(two) sons of said accused, Indrajit Debbarma, namely Sri Bhagirath Debbarma and Bhabendra Debbarmma, have sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with same case.
[5] As per FIR, on the basis of secret information on 28.07.2025, the police raided the house of accused, Indrajit Debbarma and recovered 141 kg of suspected ganja including plastic drums and sacks. Thereafter, police arrested the accused, Indrajit Debbarma and seized those items. At that time, as per the FIR, the police found that his two sons had fled away. Police investigated the case and ultimately laid charge sheet against the father and his two sons under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 . Now, the father is in custody from his arrest on 29.07.2025, and as submitted at the Bar, warrants have been issued by the learned Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura against the sons, after a charge sheet was laid by the police showing them as absconders. Therefore, the two sons of the accused, Indrajit Debbarma i.e. the petitioners of A.B. No.14/2026 have prayed for pre-arrest bail.
[6] During hearing of B.A. No.32 of 2026 with respect to accused, Indrajit Debbarma, learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh, tried to show some instances that order was passed by learned Special Judge granting bail to the accused person in some other cases for the reason that grounds of arrest were not communicated to the arrestees in their own understandable language whereas in the present case learned Special Judge on the identical situation has taken a contra view rejecting his bail application observing that grounds of arrest was properly communicated to the accused. According to learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, same standard is not being maintained by the learned Special Judge while appreciating whether grounds of arrest is being communicated in an effective way to the accused persons so that they can understand the same.
[7] Learned counsel also submits that in the present case grounds of arrest was not communicated to the accused in terms of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra and another , (2026) 1 SCC 500.
[8] Regarding the bail application of two sons of the said accused petitioner, learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, submits that despite the warrants were issued against them by the learned Special Judge, the bail applications are maintainable and there is no universal rule that when a warrant has been issued, it will exclude the jurisdiction of the Court to exercise discretion under Section
