Introduction:

The Tripura High Court, in Shri Imran Miah v. The State of Tripura (B.A. No. 120 of 2026, decided on July 1, 2026), delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional safeguards available to every arrested person, even in prosecutions under the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest, is not satisfied by merely handing over a written document in a language the accused cannot understand. The communication must be real, meaningful, and effective.

The case arose out of a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the accused, who had been arrested for offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, involving allegations relating to commercial quantity of contraband. Following his arrest, the accused remained in judicial custody, and by the time the present application was considered, charges had already been framed and several important prosecution witnesses had been examined during trial.

This was the accused’s second application for bail. His earlier application had been withdrawn without adjudication on merits. In the present proceedings, he challenged the legality of his arrest by contending that the investigating agency had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest in a language known to him. According to the defence, this amounted to a direct violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and rendered the arrest constitutionally defective.

The case presented an important question regarding the interplay between the stringent restrictions on bail contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the fundamental constitutional guarantees available to every individual against unlawful arrest. The High Court was therefore required to determine whether non-compliance with Article 22(1) could justify the grant of bail notwithstanding the rigorous statutory conditions governing NDPS offences.

Arguments of the Parties:

The accused submitted that he had remained in custody for nearly three hundred days and that substantial progress had already taken place in the trial. It was pointed out that several material prosecution witnesses, including the informant, independent seizure witnesses and the arresting officer, had already been examined. Consequently, there was little possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or obstructing the investigation.

The principal argument advanced by the defence centred on the legality of the arrest itself. It was contended that although a memorandum containing the grounds of arrest had been prepared, those grounds were communicated only in English. The accused, however, was an uneducated person who neither understood nor spoke English. Therefore, merely supplying an English document could not amount to compliance with the constitutional mandate requiring communication of the grounds of arrest.

The defence relied heavily upon the cross-examination of the investigating officer. During his evidence, the officer admitted that the accused was uneducated and did not know the English language. Despite this knowledge, the grounds of arrest had not been translated or explained in any language understood by the accused. According to the defence, this admission itself established a clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

It was further argued that the signatures appearing on the pre-search memorandum and the memorandum recording the grounds of arrest were visibly different. This discrepancy, according to the defence, created serious doubt regarding whether the accused had actually understood the contents of the documents or whether the procedural formalities had merely been completed mechanically.

On these grounds, it was submitted that the arrest suffered from a constitutional infirmity which entitled the accused to be enlarged on bail despite the restrictive provisions of the NDPS Act.

The State opposed the application by emphasizing the gravity of the allegations. It submitted that the prosecution involved commercial quantity of narcotic substances, thereby attracting the rigorous conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. According to the State, bail could not ordinarily be granted unless the statutory conditions prescribed therein were satisfied.

The prosecution also argued that the plea regarding ineffective communication of the grounds of arrest had not been raised in the earlier bail application. It was therefore contended that the accused should not be permitted to raise this issue at a subsequent stage.

Further, the State argued that the accused had signed the memorandum of grounds of arrest in English. According to the prosecution, this circumstance indicated that he was sufficiently familiar with the language or, at the very least, had accepted the contents of the document. Consequently, it was argued that the constitutional requirement stood adequately complied with.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the rival submissions and examining the evidence placed before it, the Tripura High Court allowed the bail application. Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held that the prosecution had failed to establish effective compliance with the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

The Court observed that Article 22(1) is not a mere procedural formality but embodies a valuable constitutional safeguard protecting every person against arbitrary arrest. The constitutional requirement is not fulfilled simply because a written memorandum of arrest exists. The arrested individual must actually understand the grounds on which he has been deprived of his liberty.

The Court placed considerable reliance on the testimony of the investigating officer. During cross-examination, the officer candidly admitted that the accused was uneducated and did not know the English language. Despite this knowledge, the grounds of arrest were admittedly communicated only in English.

Justice Purkayastha observed that such communication could not be regarded as meaningful or effective. Where the investigating agency is aware that the accused cannot understand the language in which the grounds are recorded, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to explain those grounds in a language known to the accused. Only then can the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) be said to have been honoured.

The Court further noted that the prosecution failed to produce any convincing material demonstrating that the contents of the memorandum had been translated, interpreted or otherwise explained to the accused in a language he understood. The mere existence of the accused’s signature on the document was held insufficient to establish effective communication, particularly when the investigating officer himself admitted that the accused was unfamiliar with English.

The discrepancy pointed out by the defence regarding the differing signatures appearing on the arrest-related documents also strengthened the Court’s concern regarding the authenticity and reliability of the procedural compliance claimed by the prosecution. Although the Court did not treat the signature discrepancy as the sole ground for granting relief, it considered the circumstance relevant while assessing whether the constitutional safeguards had genuinely been observed.

The High Court further held that constitutional protections cannot be diluted merely because the prosecution relates to offences under the NDPS Act. While acknowledging that Section 37 imposes stringent conditions governing the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic substances, the Court observed that statutory restrictions cannot override fundamental constitutional guarantees. Compliance with Article 22(1) remains mandatory irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged.

The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the accused had been effectively informed of the grounds of his arrest. Since the constitutional mandate had not been complied with, the accused became entitled to the benefit of bail notwithstanding the restrictive provisions of the NDPS Act.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the second bail application and directed the release of the accused on appropriate conditions.

The judgment is an important reaffirmation of the principle that constitutional rights continue to operate with full force even in prosecutions involving serious offences under special statutes. It clarifies that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is meaningful only when such communication is made in a language actually understood by the accused. The decision also underscores that procedural safeguards protecting personal liberty are substantive constitutional guarantees and cannot be reduced to empty formalities through mechanical compliance.

By insisting upon effective communication rather than symbolic compliance, the Tripura High Court has reinforced the broader constitutional commitment to fairness, transparency and due process in criminal investigations, reminding investigating agencies that respect for fundamental rights remains an indispensable component of every lawful arrest.