logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 316 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : BA No. 128 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Parties : Sahrul Islam Versus The State of Tripura Represented by the Ld. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Tripura, Agartala & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Paul Kumar Kalai, Advocate. For the Respondent: Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 07-07-2026
Head Note :-
NDPS Act - Sections 22(C)/8(C)/29 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 THC 847,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- NDPS Act
- Sections 22(C)/8(C)/29 of the NDPS Act
- Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Interim bail
- Prima facie
- Contraband
- Commercial quantity
- Notice under Section 50
- Sickness of mother

3. Summary:
The petitioner, Sahrul Islam, sought bail in an NDPS case where 126 gm of Yaba tablets were allegedly recovered from his vehicle. He claimed the police fabricated the case, asserting that the vehicle was purchased for a legitimate transaction and that no contraband was found. The petitioner also argued procedural irregularities in the Section 50 notice and pleaded for interim bail due to his mother’s illness. The prosecution highlighted prima facie evidence of recovery of contraband in commercial quantity and noted the absence of any co‑accused signature on the notice. The court found the defence story unsupported and rejected the bail application, ordering the return of the CD and communication of the order.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

[1] Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.

[2] The application has been filed seeking bail of accused Sahrul Islam, in connection with Irani P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 registered under Sections 22(C)/8(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.

[3] Allegations of the prosecution as per FIR are that on the basis of secret information, the police detained one Maruti Alto vehicle bearing No. AS-11Y-7177 at Tilla Bazar area of Kailashahar and on search, total 126 gm of Yaba tablets was recovered from the rear seat of the said vehicle along with 2(two) mobile phones and cash of Rs.1240/-. Present accused and another accused, namely, Jakir Hossain were found inside the vehicle. Accordingly, they were arrested on that date and since then, they are in custody.

[4] Ld. Counsel, Mr.P.K.Kalai of the petitioner submits that the police has impliacated the petitioner in the false case and according to him, the present accused actually came to Kailashahar from Patharkandi to purchase one old vehicle from a person namely, Raja Moni and he paid Rs.84,000/- to him through UPI transaction and further paid Rs.16,000/- in cash to him as total consideration price of said vehicle bearing No.TR-01B-Y0575(Baleno Delta CNG). An agreement was also prepared in this regard and the petitioner signed on the same. But said Raja Mani did not sign it on the pre text of his failure to bring the RC Book from his house. Thereafter, said Rajmoni, the petitioner and his 4(four) friends along with another friend of said Rajmoni were going to said Tilla Bazaar area by two vehicles and at that time police detained them.

[5] According to Ld. Counsel, Mr. Kalai the entire fact has been suppressed by the police in their FIR and actually nothing was recovered from the vehicle used by the present accused petitioner.

[6] Ld. Counsel Mr. Kalai also submits that the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 was not properly prepared and it was signed by one co-accused. Ld. Counsel also submits that father of the petitioner has expired one month ago and his mother is also ill and therefore, even if regular bail is not granted, at least interim bail for a very short period may be granted so that he can go to his house to lookafter his mother during her sickness.

[7] Ld. PP opposes the prayer submitting that there are sufficient prima facie materials in the case diary against the present accused person in support of the allegations made in the FIR and it is also not a case for giving any special consideration for granting interim bail.

[8] The Court has gone through the materials placed in the CD. Nothing is found there that in the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 signature of any co-accused was obtained by the Police. There are prima facie materials of recovery of said contraband item of commercial quantity from the vehicle of the present petitioner.

[9] The defence story as placed by Ld. Counsel of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage for want of any materials in support of the same. Old age or sickness of the mother of the accused cannot be a ground to consider the prayer of the petitioner for any interim bail.

Considering thus, bail prayer is rejected.

Return the CD with copy of this order.

Communicate a copy of this to the Ld. Court below.
 
  CDJLawJournal