Justice Krishna Rao, Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Orders Action Against Judicial Officers For Denial Of Legal Aid In NDPS Case; Grants Bail To Accused
|Accused sought bail citing arrest without being informed of grounds, violating Article 22(1) and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act.
The Calcutta High Court directed action against two judicial officers for failing to provide legal aid to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Court granted bail to one who had been arrested in connection with the alleged seizure of 40 bottles of Rc-Kuff cough syrup from his residence.
The Court found that he had been produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and subsequently before the District and Sessions Judge (NDPS), Alipurduar, without being offered legal representation, despite being undefended at both stages. The Court criticized this lapse and held it to be a violation of the accused’s fundamental right to legal aid.
A bench of Justice Krishna Rao said, "This order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court for information of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and necessary action against the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge (NDPS), Alipurduar for not offering Advocate from Legal Aid to the petitioner as at the time of production, the petitioner was undefended."
He was taken into custody on March 28, 2024. He later approached the High Court seeking bail on the grounds that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest a right protected under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. His legal team argued that the arresting officer had failed to communicate these grounds, thereby violating constitutional and statutory safeguards.
Upon reviewing the arrest memo, the Court observed that it neither recorded any grounds of arrest nor had a specific column to mention such information. Though the arrest memo bore the signatures of petitioner and one of his relatives, the absence of stated grounds for arrest rendered it non-compliant with legal requirements.
The Court noted that while the written complaint, the case diary, and the forwarding report claimed that the grounds were explained to Mangar, the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence substantiating this. The Court concluded that there had been a breach of the accused’s rights, "Considering the above, this Court finds that while arresting the petitioner, the Arresting Officer has violated the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 by not informing the ground of arrest to the petitioner at the time of arrest of the petitioner."
The Court underscored the constitutional mandate that every arrested person must be promptly and clearly informed of the grounds of their arrest, in a manner that is meaningful and ensures actual understanding, "This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended person. In the present case, the same is missing."
The Court ordered the release on bail, ruling that both procedural and constitutional lapses had occurred during and after his arrest.
Cause Title: Sudhar Mangar v. The State of West Bengal
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Subhankar Dutta, Arjun Chowdhury, P. Dutta Chowdhury, Sunayana Parveen, Riya Agarwal, Mantu Mandal, Bappaditya Roy, Soumyadeep Paul, and Swagata Mitra.
Respondent: Advocates Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Nilay Chakraborty, and Biswarup Roy.