Tripura High Court Grants Bail to NDPS Accused Over Serious Police Lapses, Calls Out Investigating Officer’s Failure to Follow Mandatory Arrest Procedures
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, October 1, 2026
In a significant order with potential implications for investigation and arrest procedures in narcotics cases, the High Court of Tripura has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case after finding serious lapses by the Investigating Officer in complying with mandatory statutory and constitutional safeguards governing arrest and communication of the grounds of arrest.
The order, passed on September 30, 2026 by Justice Biswajit Palit in BA No. 188 of 2026, Smt. Pramila Debbarma on behalf of Srikumar Debbarma vs State of Tripura, contains strong observations regarding the manner in which NDPS investigations and arrests are being conducted. The Court specifically observed that despite repeated directions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, investigating officers handling NDPS cases were not properly following the prescribed legal requirements, resulting in courts being compelled to grant bail because of serious investigative lapses.
The applicant in the bail petition was Smt. Pramila Debbarma, wife of Srikumar Debbarma, resident of Sadhuram Para, Patni, under Mandwi Police Station, West Tripura. She filed the petition for and on behalf of her husband, Srikumar Debbarma, who was the accused and was in custody.
The State of Tripura was the respondent, represented through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura.
The accused was represented by Advocate Kundan Pandey, while the State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Soumyadeep Saha. The matter was heard by Justice Biswajit Palit.
According to the prosecution case placed before the High Court, the case originated from a complaint lodged by Sub-Inspector Pankaj Kumar Das before the Officer-in-Charge of Agartala Government Railway Police Station (GRPS).
On May 5, 2026, at approximately 10:05 am, the complainant, along with ASI Swapan Sarkar, ASI Mansur Ali and other police personnel, proceeded from Agartala GRPS to Agartala Railway Station and adjoining areas for routine checking.
At around 12:30 pm, police personnel allegedly noticed Srikumar Debbarma carrying a blue-coloured bag and moving suspiciously on Platform No. 1. At approximately 12:35 pm, he was stopped near the parking area between the RPF post and the pay-and-use toilet.
Police questioned him about the contents of the bag and, according to the prosecution, he could not provide a satisfactory explanation. The bag was subsequently opened and 40 bottles of suspected Eskuf cough syrup allegedly containing codeine phosphate, bearing batch number QEKSL-039, were allegedly recovered.
On the basis of the written complaint, Agartala GRPS Case No. 2026 GRP 027 was registered under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, and the accused was arrested.
He was produced before the court on the same day, but his initial bail application was rejected by the concerned court. He subsequently approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). At the time of the High Court hearing, he had been in custody since May 5, 2026.
The central dispute: Was the accused properly informed of the grounds of arrest?
The defence did not primarily challenge the recovery narrative at the bail stage. Instead, Advocate Kundan Pandey focused on the legality of the arrest itself, arguing that the mandatory requirements relating to communication of the grounds of arrest had not been properly complied with.
The defence pointed out that the Investigating Officer had attached a separate sheet to the arrest memo purporting to establish that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused.
However, the defence highlighted an apparent contradiction in that document.
One portion stated that the grounds of arrest had been explained to the accused in Bengali and Kokborok, while another portion recorded that the grounds had been communicated in his mother tongue, Hindi. The defence argued that the inconsistency, coupled with the manner in which the document had been prepared, demonstrated that the mandatory constitutional requirement had not genuinely been fulfilled.
The defence further relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1939, delivered on September 21, 2026.
The High Court reproduced extensive portions of the Supreme Court's ruling.
The principle relied upon was that the grounds of arrest must be effectively communicated to an arrested person in a language he or she understands and that merely claiming that the grounds were read out may not be sufficient in circumstances where the constitutional objective of enabling the accused to understand the reasons for arrest and seek legal remedies is defeated.
The Supreme Court principles reproduced in the High Court order state that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, in a language understood by the arrested person, and that a copy should be furnished to the accused.
The High Court order further records the Supreme Court's position that non-compliance can render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
Importantly, the Supreme Court ruling as reproduced in the High Court order also states that subsequent filing of a chargesheet or taking cognizance does not automatically cure an unconstitutional arrest.
State's defence
Additional Public Prosecutor Soumyadeep Saha, appearing for the State, opposed the bail application.
The State argued that the grounds of arrest had in fact been communicated to the accused by the Investigating Officer. It was also submitted that the accused had not raised the issue before the trial court at the earlier stage.
The State further suggested that the reference to the language in which the grounds were communicated could have been a typographical error, particularly because the accused had signed the arrest memo. On that basis, the prosecution sought dismissal of the bail application.
After hearing both sides and examining the bail petition and documents, Justice Biswajit Palit took a critical view of the police documentation.
The Court noted that the Investigating Officer, SI Mangal Debbarma of Agartala GRPS, had prepared an arrest memo and a separate document purporting to record communication of the grounds of arrest.
That document stated that the accused had been informed that SI Pankaj Kumar Das and other personnel had detained him at Agartala Railway Station and recovered 40 bottles of suspected Eskuf cough syrup from a blue bag. It further stated that the accused was allegedly involved in transportation of narcotic articles and that his arrest was necessary for investigation.
However, the Court identified a major inconsistency.
The document initially stated that the grounds of arrest had been explained in Bengali and Kokborok, while the declaration at the bottom stated that the grounds had been explained in the accused's mother tongue, Hindi.
The Court also noted that the document did not establish that the accused was a Hindi-speaking person. On the contrary, the material before the Court indicated that he belonged to the Mandai area under West Agartala Police Station.
Justice Palit described this as demonstrating "total callousness and negligence" on the part of the Investigating Officer in complying with the Supreme Court's directions concerning communication of grounds of arrest.
The High Court also examined the relevant provisions of the BNSS.
Section 47 requires a police officer making an arrest without warrant to communicate the full particulars of the offence or grounds of arrest to the arrested person.
Section 48 deals with the obligation to inform a relative, friend or nominated person about the arrest and the place where the arrested person is being held.
The Court also considered Section 36, which prescribes procedures and duties of an arresting officer, including preparation of the arrest memorandum, attestation and informing the arrested person of his rights concerning communication of the arrest.
After examining these requirements, the Court concluded that the Investigating Officer had failed to ensure compliance with the applicable statutory provisions at the time of arrest.
The Court further observed that the communication document itself appeared to have been prepared illegally and without proper application of mind.
Strong observation on NDPS investigations in Tripura
One of the most significant portions of the order is the Court's broader observation concerning NDPS investigations.
Justice Palit recorded that, despite repeated directions issued by the Supreme Court as well as the Tripura High Court, investigating officers dealing with NDPS cases were not complying with the applicable directions and statutory requirements.
The Court observed that such negligence was resulting in courts being compelled to grant bail to accused persons in cases of this nature because of serious lapses on the part of investigating officers.
more news...