Hachina Akhtar vs Union Of India

Heard learned counsel of both sides.

[2] The petition has been filed seeking bail of accused persons namely, Billal Hossain, Rumina Akhtar and Fatema Khatun in connection with C.No.09/CL/NDPS/DPF/AGT/2025-26 dated 20.03.2026 registered under Sections 8(c)/22(c)/28/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

[3] All the accused persons were arrested on 20.03.2026 and since then they are in custody for around 158 days.

[4] The accused persons were detained at Agartala Railway Station after the Hamsafar express arrived there and total 3.425 kgs of yaba tablets were recovered from them. Police accordingly arrested them, issued arrest memo and also ground of their arrest in separate sheet of papers. Both the arrest memo as well as the document containing ground of arrest, contain the brief description of the occurrence and recovery of said contraband items. Accused Fatema Khatun signed in the ground of arrest in Bengali language whereas beneath her signature, the date is written in English language but not in a very efficient and comfortable manner. Accused Rumina Akhtar could not sign and therefore, her thumb impression was taken in those documents. Accused Billal Hossain also signed in Bengali language but the date of signing was put in English language in similar manner like unskilled handwriting style.

[5] Mr. Debajit Biswas, learned counsel for the accused persons prays for bail on a single ground that the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another; (2026) 1 SCC (Cri) 1 was not complied with and the ground of arrest was not communicated to them in the language they understand. Therefore, according to him, the arrest has become illegal and thus, the accused persons are entitled to get bail. The relevant paragraph 60 of said decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is extracted hereunder:

[6] Mr. Biplabendu Roy, learned counsel for respondent submits that ground of arrest was duly communicated to the accused persons in Bengali which they understood. However, in the case diary, there is no entry that it was actually read over to them in Bengali language and such omission was an unintentional error on the part of the arresting authority. Learned counsel also submits that the seizure list contains the signature of independent witnesses who were also aware of such arrest as well as ground of arrest.

[7] Mr. Roy, learned counsel relies on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif; Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024 wherein it is observed that provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act and also the impact on the society as a whole and while granting bail, Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel further relies on another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa; Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2026 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.896 of 2026 decided on 02.06.2026 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has made a observation that recently in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi; Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.2867/2026, the question concerning the approach of constitutional Courts in bail matters under special statutes, where “Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect” was referred before larger Bench and therefore no further deliberation was made on that point. However, it is also further observed that when there is any conflict between the sovereignty of the country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people.

[8] Lastly, learned counsel relies on another decision of Bombay High Court in case of Arshad Karar Khan vs. State of Maharashtra; Bail Application No.286 of 2025 decided on 15.10.2025 wherein the High Court observes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in cases under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, the Court must exercise restraint and not grant bail as a matter of routine.

[9] This Court while taking note of the submission of both sides and the decisions referred hereinabove, finds that the ground of arrest as communicated to the accused person were written in English language and it was also noted therein that the ground of arrest were read over and explained to the arrested persons in a language understood by them. By which language said ground of arrest was communicated to them was not further disclosed therein specially when they did not even know how to sign in English. It is a serious lapse on the part of the arresting officer as it touches the fundamental right of the accused person enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the case relates to recovery of huge quantity of Yaba tablets where societal interest is involved, therefore matter ought to have been dealt with more seriously. In clear terms it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) that the constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under Penal Code, 1860 and the ground of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands (emphasis laid). Earlier thereto, in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169 it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

[10] From the manner and style of writing the names in Bengali by two accused persons and taking of thumb impression of another accused give the prima facie impression that the arrested accused persons are not much aware of English language and one of them is even illiterate. Who put the date beneath the signature of those two accused persons in English language is also not clear. As already indicated above, though it is stated that ground of arrest was explained to the accused persons in the language understood by them but it has not been further clarified in which language ground of arrest was communicated to them and there is also no indication in the record in this regard. Thus, it appears that the respondent has failed to discharge their burden to show that ground of arrest was duly communicated to the arrested persons effectively in the language they understand and thereby has failed to show due compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution in the light of decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and thereby In view of the above position, Court is constrained to hold that the arrest of the accused persons have been rendered illegal for non-compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution in letter and spirit. Therefore, the bail prayer is allowed.

[11] The accused persons namely, Billal Hossain, Rumina Akhtar and Fatema Khatun may go on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, West Tripura on the conditions that-

The bail application is accordingly disposed of.

Return the case diary to learned counsel for the respondent with copy of this order.

Communicate a copy of this order to learned Special Judge immediately.

Re-consign the Trial Court record.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.