Tripura HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail in NDPS Case (S.21(c)/25/29) Citing S.37 Rigors, Accused's Evasive Conduct & Prior Case - 2025-06-26

Tripura High Court Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail in NDPS Case, Cites Accused's Conduct and Section 37 Rigors

Agartala, Tripura – June 23, 2025 – The High Court of Tripura, in a significant ruling, has rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Debabrata Dey @ Debu, an accused in a case involving substantial quantities of Phensedyl under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit , while acknowledging the maintainability of a pre-arrest bail plea even after the submission of a chargesheet, ultimately denied relief, emphasizing the accused's evasive conduct, a prior NDPS case, and the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Case Background

The petitioner, Debabrata Dey, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Mungiakami P.S. Case No.015/2021. This case was registered under Sections 21(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, following a suo-moto complaint by S.I. Ranjit Das on May 30, 2021. The complaint detailed the interception of a 10-wheeler dumper from which 14,400 bottles of Phensedyl Cough Linctus were recovered. The petitioner was implicated during the investigation, leading to a warrant of arrest and subsequent proclamation proceedings against him. A chargesheet has since been filed, and cognizance was taken on April 10, 2024.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel Arguments: Mr. Gautam Choudhury, representing the petitioner, argued that Dey was falsely implicated based on a co-accused's statement, which he contended is inadmissible under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu . He highlighted that Dey is a reputed person and that the Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No.15125/2023, had made observations regarding the proclamation order. The counsel extensively argued the maintainability of the pre-arrest bail plea post-chargesheet, citing Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra . He further contended that there was no direct evidence linking Dey to the crime, no recovery from his possession, and that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met by the prosecution. References were also made to Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh on the humane approach to bail and Sekaran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu regarding abscondence not proving guilt.

State's Counsel Arguments: Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta, vehemently opposed the bail application. He stressed the petitioner's consistent evasion of arrest, noting that warrants and proclamation orders had been issued. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had dismissed the petitioner's SLP challenging the High Court's earlier order related to the proclamation and did not grant bail. The P.P. argued that Dey's conduct, coupled with his involvement in another NDPS case (Panisagar P.S. Case No.22 of 2018), painted him as a habitual offender. Citing Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another , he argued that absconders are generally not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Crucially, he invoked State by the Inspector of Police Vs. B. Ramu , emphasizing that for offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, the court must be satisfied with the conditions under Section 37, which he argued were not met.

Court's Reasoning and Application of Legal Principles

Justice Biswajit Palit first addressed the maintainability of the pre-arrest bail application. Agreeing with the petitioner's counsel and citing Supreme Court precedents like Ravindra Saxena , the Court held:

"in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforenoted cases (supra) it appears to this Court that there is scope for filing anticipatory bail/pre-arrest bail by the accused-petitioner."

However, on the merits of granting bail, the Court found a different footing. The judgment meticulously recounted the petitioner's history of non-cooperation:

"It appears that as per order dated 14.09.2022...warrant of arrest against him and thereafter as the warrant could not be executed so by order dated 10.07.2023 proclamation was also issued...But inspite of that, the accused petitioner did not surrender before the Court nor the police official could execute the warrant of arrest issued against him."

The Court noted the Supreme Court's order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.15125/2023, where the SLP was dismissed with the observation: "However, the impugned proclamation order issued against the petitioner should have no bearing on the other legal proceedings which the petitioner might wish to pursue..." Despite this, the petitioner did not surrender.

The Court also highlighted the petitioner's alleged involvement in another NDPS case (Panisagar P.S. Case No.22 of 2018), stating, "The conduct of the accused was not at all satisfactory."

The pivotal factor in the denial was Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State by the Inspector of Police Vs. B. Ramu , the Court underscored the mandatory nature of the twin conditions for bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Justice Palit concluded:

"from the conduct of the accused there is no scope to give any favourable presumption in favour of the accused petitioner as provided under Section 37 of NDPS Act and as such considering the materials on record at this stage I do not find any scope to consider concession of granting pre-arrest bail in favour of the present petitioner accused."

The Court also found support in Srikant Upadhyay , reinforcing that individuals continuously defying court orders and absconding are generally not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court ultimately rejected the pre-arrest bail application. The order stated:

"Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused petitioner stands rejected. The accused petitioner shall surrender before the Learned Trial Court on or before the next date and may pray for bail before the Learned Trial Court below and the Learned Trial Court below shall without being biased by the observation made by this Court consider to dispose of the case in accordance with law..."

This judgment reiterates the stringent approach courts adopt for bail under the NDPS Act, particularly when faced with an accused who has a history of evading legal processes and prior involvement in similar offences. While the maintainability of pre-arrest bail post-chargesheet is upheld, the grant of such bail remains contingent on satisfying the rigorous conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the overall conduct of the accused.