Smt Susmita Shukla Das on behalf of Sri Tapas Paul vs Union of India

TRHC010007952026 2026:THC:724
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A G A R T A L A
B.A. No.95 of 2026
Smt. Susmita Shukla Das,
W/o Sri Tapas Paul, resident of West Para, Village Durgapur, P.S. P.R. Bari,
Belonia, District South Tripura.
……… Petitioner(s)
For and on behalf of
Sri Tapas Paul,
S/o Shri Kaun Paul, resident of West Para, Village Durgapur, P.S. P.R. Bari,
Belonia, District South Tripura.
……… Accused Person
(In custody since 27.02.2025)
– V e r s u s –
Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
New Delhi
……..Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner/Accused Person(s) : Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Koushik Datta, Advocate.
th
Date of hearing : 15 May, 2026.
Date of delivery of
rd
Judgment & Order : 3 June, 2026.

YES NO

√
Whether fit for reporting :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Heard learned counsel of both sides.
[2] The accused is facing the trial for the charges framed under
Sections 22(C)/23(C)/25A of the NDPS Act, 1985, on the allegations that on
27.02.2025, 9 Kgs of Yaba tablets containing Methamphetamine was
recovered from a vehicle bearing No. TR-01-AU-1710 worth of
Rs.9,11,00,000/- which was concealed in driver’s cabin and the present
accused was the driver of said vehicle. The accused was accordingly arrested

Page 2 of 10


on 27.02.2025 and produced before the Court of learned Special Judge
(NDPS), Khowai on the same day.
[3] Record shows on that day he was not represented by any
advocate of his own choice, however, the Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence
Counsel appeared for him and prayed for bail, but said prayer was rejected
and he was remanded to JC till 13.03.2025. On 13.03.2025, another counsel
appeared for him being engaged by him and submitted a separate bail
application stating that the family members of the accused person was
suffering from serious illness and required better treatment. Said bail
application was also rejected.
[4] On 25.08.2025, the investigating officer submitted the charge-
sheet and charges were framed against him by learned Special Judge
(NDPS), Court No.2, Khowai on 04.10.2025. The calendar for examination of
witnesses was framed from 10.03.2026 to 13.03.2026 and on 10.03.2026, one
witness was examined and on 11.03.2026, another witness was partly
examined. Thereafter, another date is fixed on 12.06.2026 i.e. almost after
three months for cross-examination of only PW-1.
[5] Mr. Kundan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the trial is going in a very slow pace and only for part cross-examination of
one witness, the date has been fixed and that is too after three months and no
calendar has yet been fixed for examination of other witness, though the
accused is in custody for more than 442 days as on today.
[6] Another ground as raised by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel is that
the grounds of arrest was not duly communicated to the accused person in his
own language and even same was also not communicated to his family
members. In this regard, learned counsel relies on a decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228 decided on
23.05.2025. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.18 held
that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest
is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition and it is necessary
that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been

Page 3 of 10


arrested. The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must
be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Article 22(1) of the
Constitution. It was also further observed that the grounds of arrest should not
only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives
so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person
arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of
Article 22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be
rendered illegal.
[7] Mr. Pandey, learned counsel also relies on another decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanishk Sinha and another vs. State
of West Bengal and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 443 wherein it was
observed that a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature
unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective
operation and the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a
Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpreted by the Court. The reason for
relying on this decision by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel is that the accused
person was arrested prior to the decision of Kasireddy (supra ) . In Kasireddy
(supra) , reference was also made to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 269 wherein it is held by the Apex Court that as far as Article
22(1) is concerned, compliance can be made by communicating sufficient
knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the accused
person arrested. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to
the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same.
Therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language
which the arrestee understands.
[8] Mr. Pandey, learned counsel further refers to a judgment of Kerala
High Court in the case of Basheer Thaliyil vs. State of Kerala, represented
by the Public Prosecutor and another, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 2338
wherein referring to above said judgment of Kasireddy (supra) and another
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State
of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500 and also a judgment of Single Bench of
Kerala High Court in case of Alvin Riby vs. State of Kerala, 2025 KER

Page 4 of 10


67079 , observes that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the near
relatives renders the arrest illegal.
[9] Mr. Pandey, learned counsel also relies on another decision of
Apex Court in the case of Rajadurai vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, decided
on 05.05.2026 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4729 of 2026 wherein
the Hon’ble Court applying the discretion granted bail to the accused person in
a case of commercial quantity of contraband items where accused was in
custody for more than one year. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel further relied on
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs.
Union of India and another, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327 wherein also it is
observed by the Apex Court that it is no longer res integra that supplying the
grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case,
under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is the mandate of
the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with Article 21
of the Constitution of India. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) was also referred.

[10] Mr. Koushik Datta, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that exhaustively the grounds of arrest was intimated to the accused just after
his arrest and it was also certified by the arresting authority that grounds of
arrest was explained to the arrested person in his own language. Learned
counsel also further refers to the arrest memo of the accused wherein the
accused person has certified that the fact of his arrest was informed to his
wife, Susmita Das through her mobile phone bearing No.9362711549 from
phone no. 7662875083. Therefore, there was full compliance of Article 22 (1)
of the Constitution and Section 48 of BNSS.
[11] Court has considered the submission of both sides.
[12] In Vihaan Kumar (supra) it is held by the Apex Court that the
requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a
mere formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. It is the
fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be
informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest
are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a

Page 5 of 10


violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article
22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in that case finally concludes that the information of the
grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner
that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest is
imparted and is communicated to the arrested person effectively in the
language which he understands. The mode and method of communication
must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved and
non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the
accused. At paragraph No.26.5, it was also directed that when an arrested
person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it will be the duty
of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other
mandatory safeguards has been made.
[13] In said judgment, in the supplementing notes, His Lordship,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh further observes that said constitutional
mandate has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50, CrPC
(Section 47 of BNSS). The aforesaid provision of requirement for
communicating the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also required to be
communicated to the friends, relatives or such other persons of the accused
as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of
giving such information as provided under Section 50A of CrPC. It is also
further observed by His Lordship that the purpose of inserting Section 50A of
CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the
arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is
to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure
the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested
person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to
the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available
to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging
lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the
earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the
detenue, in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a
formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest
but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives,
friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible

Page 6 of 10


opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In that contexts, it is further
observed by His Lordship that the requirement of communicating the grounds
of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends,
relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution
meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
[14] In Kasireddy (supra) maintaining the same principle, Hon’ble
Supreme Court further clarified one factual aspect of Vihaan Kumar (supra)
that said case was a case where there was an absolute failure on the part of
the police to provide the grounds of arrest. In Vihaan Kumar (supra) , reliance
was placed upon the entry in the case diary which recorded that the appellant
was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest but, in Kasireddy
(supra) , the grounds of arrest was supplied to the arrestee but the challenge
was made that those grounds were not meaningful and were bereft of
necessary essential information. In that context, Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kasireddy (supra) observes that it is not necessary for the authorities to
furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient
to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The
grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat
similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of the case.
[15] At paragraph No.27, the underlying principle of communicating
the grounds of arrest is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that on
learning about the grounds for arrest, the person concerned will be in a
position to make an application before the appropriate Court for bail, or to
move the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Further, the information will
enable the arrested person to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of
his trial and for that reason, it has been provided by the Constitution that, the
ground for the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon as
possible. It is also held that if a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds
for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself and if the warrant is read over to
the arrested person, it will be the sufficient compliance with the requirements,
and if he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been
arrested. He must also be informed of the precise acts done by him for which

Page 7 of 10


he would be tried and informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts
would not be enough.
[16] Later, in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has also taken note of the earlier decisions in cases of Pankaj Bansal v.
Union of India and others; (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi); (2024) 8 SCC 254 and also the decision rendered in Vihaan
Kumar (supra) and the supplementing note of His Lordship, Hon’ble Mr.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh therein. While analyzing the law on that point,
Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.38 observes that the objective
enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India for furnishing grounds of
arrest stems from the fundamental principle of providing opportunity to a
person to allow him to defend himself from the accusations that are levelled
against him leading to his arrest. The salutary purpose of informing the
grounds of arrest is to enable the person to understand the basis of his arrest
and engage legal counsel to challenge his arrest, remand or seek bail and/or
avail of any other remedy as may be available to him/her under law.
[17] At paragraph No.41, it is also observed that the purpose of
securing legal assistance before remand is not merely symbolic, but it is to
ensure that the accused is afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the
prayer for police custody and to place before the magistrate any
circumstances that may warrant refusal or limitation of such custody. If the
accused is not represented through a counsel, he/she should be made aware
that he/she is entitled for legal aid. As far as possible, it shall be ensured that
every accused person is represented by an advocate, if he is not able to avail
such assistance, he should be given free legal aid. At paragraph No.44, it is
further observed that the arrested person must be well equipped with the
information not only about his arrest but the reasons and grounds thereof prior
to his production before the magistrate so as to enable him to effectively
defend himself and oppose the police and judicial custody and even press for
bail. At paragraph No.60, taking note of some contingencies and situation
regarding procedural impediment for the law enforcing agencies in complying
such constitutional and statutory responsibility regarding communication of
grounds of arrest to the arrestee etc., it is further observed that the
constitutional safeguards, valuable as they are, cannot be interpreted in a

Page 8 of 10


manner so as to allow it to metamorphose into a procedural impediment that
handicaps the law enforcing agencies in due lawful discharge of their duties
and therefore, a balance between the compliance of the constitutional as also
the statutorily mandated safeguards on the one hand vis-a-vis the effective
discharge of lawful statutory law enforcement duties and responsibilities cast
upon the State agencies must be struck. Finally, Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest
is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC
and it should be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language
he/she understands. It is further held that in case(s) where, the arresting
officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or
soon after the arrest, it be so done orally. The grounds be communicated in
writing within a reasonable time thereafter and in any case at least two hours
prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the
Magistrate.
[18] On perusal of all these authoritative pronouncements of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it requires no further deliberation that grounds of arrest must
be communicated to the arrestee in writing and same should be
communicated in the language which is understandable by him. The effective
and meaningful communication of such grounds of arrest to the accused only
fulfils the Constitutional requirement of Article 22(1). The very purpose of
communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused person is to enable him to
know for what reason he has been arrested and also to enable him to take
proper defence and to seek effective legal assistance for defending him
against any petition for his remand and also for his bail and also to take other
recourses of law. It becomes more effective and of more aid to him when such
grounds of arrest are communicated to his near relatives or friends or any
person nominated by him to be informed of the fact of his arrest. As the
arrestee remains behind the bar, communicating of such grounds of arrest to
his relatives, friends or nominated person gives better opportunity to him to
defend his case through such relatives, friends or nominated person. Basic
intention behind Article 22(1) of the Constitution is to make the arrestee enable
to defend him in an effective and proper manner in such remand proceeding or
for other purposes related thereto. Therefore, it is required to be examined
from the attending facts and circumstances of each case whether the

Page 9 of 10


Constitutional requirement of Article 22(1) in respect of a particular accused
person is satisfactorily met up or not.
[19] Now, coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is seen that the
detailed grounds of arrest was communicated to the accused person in writing
in an exhaustive manner. The arresting officer has also given a note in the
said document containing grounds of arrest that he explained the grounds of
arrest to the accused to his own language and the arrestee has also signed
therein. It is also noted by the investigating officer in the arrest memo that the
fact of arrest has also been informed to his wife namely, Susmita Das through
her mobile phone bearing No.9362711549 wherein the accused has also put
his signature. The accused was arrested at Tuichindrai under Teliamura P.S.
whereas the residence of the accused is at P.R. Bari under South Tripura
District wherein his wife is residing and the same is far away from the place of
arrest. Therefore, the arresting officer had to communicate the said fact of
arrest to his wife over phone. The accused was arrested on 27.02.2025 and he
never raised any such plea before the learned Special Judge that grounds of
arrest was not communicated to him in the language understandable by him
though he was throughout represented by the Advocates since his first
production before the Court. Now, raising of such issue for the first time before
the High Court after such a long time, appears to be afterthought.
[20] In view of above, it is held that the prayer for bail of the accused
person is devoid of any merit and accordingly, same is rejected.
[21] However, before parting with the record, this Court in terms of the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra), it is directed to
all the learned Special Judges under the Special Legislations and the learned
Magistrates that whenever any accused person under arrest is produced
before the Court, said Court will positively ascertain whether compliance with
Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards have been made by arresting
authority or not.
A copy of this judgement be circulated to all the learned Special
Judges and the Judicial Magistrates of the State for compliance.

Page 10 of 10


It also appears that the trial is running in a very slow pace in the
Court of learned Special Judge, Khowai and the calendar is fixed after three
months and that is also only for part examination of only one witness though
the accused is in custody for such a long period. The learned Special Judge is,
therefore, directed to take all endeavours to complete the trial within six
months.
The prosecuting agency in addition to the summons/warrants
issued by the learned Special Judge, will produce their witnesses on their own
accord on each date fixed as per the calendar(s) fixed for examination of
prosecution witnesses.
The bail application is accordingly disposed of.
Re-consign the Trial Court record.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

JUDGE













RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Rudradeep
Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Date: 2026.06.03 16:47:38 +05'30'