Accused Appearing on Summons Cannot Be Detained: Tripura HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case [Read Order]
The court did not find it necessary to examine the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes restrictions on granting bail in narcotics cases.
The Tripura High Court has granted bail to accused in a narcotics case involving 15 kg of Yaba tablets, establishing that an accused who appears before court in response to a summons cannot be taken into custody and must instead be released on furnishing a bond under Section 88 of CrPC.
The application was filed on behalf of the accused, Moudud Ahmed Choudhury who was the owner of a vehicle in which narcotics were recovered, had approached the court after his surrender before the Special Court resulted in judicial custody and multiple rejected bail applications. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had seized the vehicle near Kamalghat bridge in June 2024, discovering the contraband hidden in various compartments.
The core legal issue was whether an accused who appears before court in response to a summons can be lawfully detained, particularly in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The defense argued that the detention was illegal, the complaint was not maintainable, and there were insufficient incriminating materials against the accused.
The court, comprising Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which established that when an accused appears pursuant to a summons, they shall not be treated as if in custody and are not required to apply for bail. The court noted that similar provisions apply to NDPS cases, as the Special Court is deemed to be a Court of Sessions under Section 36A of the NDPS Act.
The court observed that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had not arrested the accused before submitting the final complaint, and therefore, when Choudhury appeared in response to the summons, the Special Court could only require him to furnish a bond under Section 88 of CrPC to ensure his appearance during trial. The court characterized the practice of taking an accused into custody after they appear on summons as "completely illegal."
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
Consequently, finding that the detention was contrary to established legal precedent, the High Court ordered that Choudhury be released on furnishing a bond under Section 88 of CrPC with one surety, along with an undertaking to appear regularly before the Special Court. The court did not find it necessary to examine the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes restrictions on granting bail in narcotics cases.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
