Failure to Provide Prompt Grounds of Arrest and Relative Notification Render Arrest Illegal, Subject to Factual Verification

The accused, Tapas Paul, was arrested on 27.02.2025 following the recovery of 9 Kgs of Yaba tablets (Methamphetamine) valued at ₹9.11 crores from a vehicle he was driving.

The accused applied for bail on two primary grounds: first, the slow pace of the trial, noting he had been in custody for 442 days with significant delays between witness examinations.

Second, that the mandatory constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in his own language and to his family members was violated.

1. Whether the arrest of the accused was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 48 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the accused is entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial.

Article 22(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandate that an arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest "as soon as may be".

Section 48 of the BNSS regarding the obligation to inform a nominated relative.

Doctrine from Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) establishing that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, and to their relatives to make the right to legal counsel meaningful.

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) regarding the timeline for providing written grounds.

The Court examined the arrest records and found that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused in writing and an endorsement was made by the arresting officer that the grounds were explained in the accused's own language.

Regarding the notification of family, the court noted that since the arrest occurred far from the accused’s residence, the officer informed the wife via telephone, which was documented in the arrest memo and signed by the accused.

The Court observed that the accused did not raise the issue of language or communication during initial remand proceedings or previous bail applications, suggesting the current plea was an "afterthought".

While the Court acknowledged the trial's slow progress (fixing dates three months apart), it determined that such procedural delays in a commercial quantity NDPS case did not automatically override the merits of the recovery.

The Court issued a mandatory directive to all Special Judges and Magistrates in Tripura to verify compliance with Article 22(1) and other safeguards during every production of an arrestee.

The Court directed the Special Judge, Khowai, to complete the trial within six months and ordered the prosecuting agency to ensure the timely production of witnesses.