Failure To Communicate Grounds Of Arrest To Uneducated Accused In Understandable Manner Vitiates Arrest: Tripura High Court Grants Bail
The Tripura High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act after holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the grounds of arrest were effectively communicated to him in a language he understood. The Court Noted that the investigating officer had described the accused as "uneducated" and admitted that he did not...
The Tripura High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act after holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the grounds of arrest were effectively communicated to him in a language he understood.
The Court Noted that the investigating officer had described the accused as "uneducated" and admitted that he did not know English, the Court held that there was non-compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1), entitling the accused to bail despite the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
Justice S.Datta Purkayastha remarked that: "The investigating officer had described the accused as 'uneducated' and admitted that he did not know the English language. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish effective communication of the grounds of arrest and granted bail."
Background:
The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Malik Miah, who was arrested for offences under Sections 21(c), 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused remained in judicial custody since his arrest and charges had already been framed against him.
This was the accused's second attempt at securing bail. His earlier bail application had been withdrawn. In the application, he contended that he had been in custody for about 300 days, several material witnesses, including the informant, two independent seizure witnesses and the arresting officer, had already been examined, and that the arrest itself stood vitiated as the grounds of arrest had not been effectively communicated to him in a language he understood.
The defence relied on the arresting officer's cross-examination, wherein he admitted that the grounds of arrest had been communicated in English and that the accused did not know the English language. It was further argued that the signatures appearing on the pre-search memo and the memorandum of grounds of arrest did not match, casting doubt on whether the accused had understood the contents of the documents.
In response, the State argued that the case involved commercial quantity of contraband attracting the stringent bar on bail under the NDPS Act. It also submitted that the plea regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest had not been raised in the earlier bail application and that the accused had signed the memorandum of grounds of arrest in English, indicating that he was familiar with the language.
Case Name: Shri Imran Miah v. The State of Tripura
Case No.: B.A. No.120 of 2026
Decision Date: 01.07.2026