The High Court of Tripura has reaffirmed that compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not a procedural formality but a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention. In a case involving possession of a commercial quantity of ganja, the Court granted bail not on the merits of the charge, but on the ground that the accused was never effectively informed of the reasons for his arrest - a violation that nullifies the legality of detention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The accused, Ramu Kumar, an illiterate man from Bihar, was arrested on 17 June 2024 at Agartala Railway Station after 21 kg of suspected ganja in 18 packets was recovered from him. The arrest was made by an officer of the Railway Protection Force under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which criminalizes possession of commercial quantities of narcotic substances. The FIR was registered as Case No. 66 of 2024.
Procedural History
- 17 June 2024: Arrest made without written communication of grounds
- 17 June 2024: Arrest memo recorded with ground of arrest stated as "Reference to the above"
- December 2025: Bail application rejected by Special Judge without addressing Article 22(1) violation
- January 2026: Petition filed before Tripura High Court challenging legality of arrest
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on the ground that the arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that every arrested person shall be informed of the grounds for arrest. The petitioner argued that the arrest memo’s vague reference rendered the communication legally ineffective.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of arrest be communicated in clear, specific, and intelligible terms - particularly when the accused is illiterate - and whether failure to do so renders the detention illegal and entitles the accused to bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel, relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Smt. Anita Nama v. State of Tripura (WP(Crl) No. 04 of 2025) to argue that Article 22(1) imposes a non-negotiable duty on arresting authorities to communicate grounds in writing and in a language the accused understands. He emphasized that stating "Reference to the above" on an arrest memo is legally meaningless, especially for an illiterate person who cannot comprehend vague references to documents. He further contended that the Special Judge’s dismissal of bail on grounds of advocate changes was a gross disregard of constitutional rights.
For the Respondent
Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor, conceded that no separate written communication beyond the arrest memo existed. He argued that the FIR and charge sheet contained sufficient details and that the accused was aware of the nature of the allegation through the recovery of contraband. He maintained that the arrest memo’s mention of "Reference to the above" was sufficient under routine police practice, and that the gravity of the NDPS offence warranted continued custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the arrest memo and found that the ground of arrest was recorded as "Reference to the above" - a phrase devoid of any factual specificity. The Court noted that the accused was illiterate and could not have understood the reference to an FIR or any document. The Court held that mere mechanical recording of compliance on a form does not satisfy constitutional obligations.
"The arresting authority shall have to show that grounds of arrest containing basic facts constituting such grounds are communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands."
The Court distinguished between procedural compliance and substantive compliance. While the arrest memo bore a thumb impression and a checkbox for "Yes" regarding awareness, the content of the communication was legally void. The Court emphasized that Article 22(1) is not a technicality but a bulwark against arbitrary state power. It further criticized the Special Judge for ignoring the constitutional issue and instead relying on the accused’s change of advocates - a factor irrelevant to the legality of detention.
The Court concluded that an arrest without effective communication of grounds is illegal ab initio, and such illegality cannot be cured by subsequent charge sheet filing or the seriousness of the offence.
The Verdict
The accused won. The Court held that failure to communicate clear, specific grounds of arrest in a language the accused understands violates Article 22(1) and renders detention illegal. The Court granted bail on conditions including a bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety resident of Tripura, and directed the Trial Court to ensure compliance with the bail conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Grounds of Arrest Must Be Specific and Understandable
- Practitioners must challenge arrests where the arrest memo uses vague phrases like "Reference to the above" or "as per FIR"
- In cases involving illiterate or low-literacy accused, oral communication alone is insufficient without written, simple-language documentation
- The burden of proving compliance rests entirely on the prosecution
Bail Cannot Be Denied on Irrelevant Grounds
- Courts must not reject bail applications on grounds such as frequent change of advocates when a constitutional violation is raised
- The seriousness of the offence under NDPS Act does not override the mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)
- A violation of Article 22(1) is a ground for bail irrespective of the stage of proceedings
Arrest Memos Are Not Self-Executing Compliance
- Arrest memos must contain actual facts - e.g., "Arrested for possession of 21 kg of ganja recovered from your person at Agartala Railway Station" - not references
- Police must record the language used to communicate grounds and confirm understanding
- Failure to do so invites judicial intervention and potential liability for unlawful detention
