Calcutta HC Orders Action Against Judicial officers For Failing To Provide Legal Aid To NDPS Accused [Read Judgment]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has directed action against judicial officers for failing to provide legal aid to an unrepresented accused in an NDPS case, while simultaneously granting bail on grounds of constitutional violations during arrest.

Justice Krishna Rao delivered the judgment in CRM (NDPS) No. 146 of 2025, emphasizing the fundamental right to legal representation and the importance of proper arrest procedures under the Constitution of India.

The court was hearing the bail application of Sudhar Mangar, who was arrested under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in connection with Jaigaon Police Station Case No. 62 of 2024.

The case involved the seizure of 40 bottles of “Rc-Kuff” cough syrup from the petitioner’s house on March 28, 2024. The court noted:
“The allegation against the petitioner is that on 28th March, 2024, upon receipt of information, the police reached the petitioner’s house and, during the search, recovered one plastic sack styled ‘Langal’ containing 40 bottles of ‘Rc-Kuff’ cough syrup, each bottle containing 100 ml.”

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arrest was vitiated due to non-compliance with constitutional mandates, stating that “the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in writing, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, the arrest is vitiated.”

The court extensively analyzed Article 22(1) and relevant Supreme Court precedents, particularly citing the Prabir Purkayastha and Vihaan Kumar judgments. It observed:
“The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or detention in writing, as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution, is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any circumstance.”

Upon examining the arrest memo, the court noted serious deficiencies:
“Admittedly, the arrest memo does not mention the grounds of arrest, nor does it contain any column for conveying such grounds.”

While the prosecution claimed the grounds were orally communicated and later recorded in various documents, the court held:
“Though the written complaint, Case Diary, and forwarding report before the Learned Judge, NDPS Court, mention that the grounds of arrest were explained to the petitioner, the State has not produced any document or evidence to prove that the same was communicated at the time of arrest.”

Finding constitutional violations, the court observed:
“This Court finds that the Arresting Officer violated the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act by failing to inform the petitioner of the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest.”

Accordingly, the court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each, with the condition that “the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every hearing date without fail and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Jaigaon Police Station without the court’s permission.”

However, the court’s most significant directive pertained to the denial of legal aid. It noted:
“This Court finds that neither the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar, before whom the petitioner was first produced after arrest, nor the Learned District & Sessions Judge (NDPS), before whom the petitioner was produced on 1st April, 2024, after completion of police remand, provided a Legal Aid Advocate to the petitioner. On both occasions, the petitioner was undefended.”

Consequently, the court directed:
“This order shall be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court for the information of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and for necessary action against the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District & Sessions Judge (NDPS), Alipurduar, for failing to provide legal aid when the petitioner was undefended at the time of production.”

Appearances:
Mr. Subhankar Dutta, Mr. Arjun Chowdhury, Ms. P. Dutta Chowdhury, Ms. Sunayana Parveen, Ms. Riya Agarwal, Mr. Mantu Mandal, Mr. Bappaditya Roy, Mr. Soumyadeep Paul, and Mr. Swagata Mitra, Advocates, appeared for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty (APP-in-charge), Mr. Nilay Chakraborty (APP), and Mr. Biswarup Roy, Advocate, appeared for the State.

Case Title: Sudhar Mangar vs. The State of West Bengal

[Read Judgment]