AGARTALA, India, Feb. 19 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Jan. 19:

[1] Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.

[2] The applicant Smt. Archana Sarkar on behalf of accused Shri Nikhil Sarkar has submitted the application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short-'BNSS'), 2023 seeking bail of accused Nikhil Sarkar in connection with Airport P.S. case No. 2025/ARP/57, later on re-registered as Special (NDPS)168 of 2025 under Sections 22(b), 25, 29 of NDPS Act, pending in the Court of Ld. Special Judge(NDPS), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala.

[3] The FIR was lodged by one Sub Inspector of Police namely, Shri Sukanta Guha of Airport P.S. on 15.09.2025 that based on certain secret information, he along with other police officials raided the dwelling house of co-accused Samarjit Biswas in presence of SDPO, NCC, after observing all other legal formalities and ultimately, during search of the room, 28 gms of suspected heroin was recovered in a blue colored plastic packet and also, further 28gms of such heroin was recovered from the pant of accused Nikhil Sarkar. The SFSL report confirmed that the seized items were positive for 6-monoacetyl morphine, acetyl codeine and other non identifiable insoluble substances i.e. compounds of narcotic drugs. Ld. Counsel of both sides contends that the quantity of alleged heroin falls in the intermediate quantity.

[4] Police proceeded with the investigation and ultimately laid the charge sheet on 12.11.2025 against both the accused persons namely Nikhil Sarkar and Samarjit Biswas under Sections 22(b)/29 of NDPS Act. On the following day, the Investigating Officer also submitted a petition for custody-trial of both the accused persons on certain grounds like, if they are released on bail, they may influence the witnesses and a wrong message will go to the society on their release on bail and that day by day, crimes under NDPS Act are increasing etc. It is also stated by the I.O. that there is possibility to repeat the same offence by the accused persons, if they are released on bail.

[5] Ld. Counsel, Mr. Janardhan Bhattacharjee submits that both the accused persons were arrested on 15.09.2025 and since then, they are in custody i.e. for around 120 days.

[6] Mr. Bhattacharjee also submits that though such petition for custody trial was filed by the I.O., but, his client has no information of the same and copy of the said petition was also not served upon the accused.

[7] Ld. Counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee, therefore, earnestly prays for bail on the ground that the quantity of seized item was of intermediate quantity and for much more than 60 days, the accused is in custody.

[8] Ld. PP, Mr. Raju Datta, however, seriously opposes the prayer and submits that the application for custody trial is pending before the Ld. Special Judge, and therefore, if bail is granted to the accused, same will ultimately frustrate the petition submitted by the Investigating Officer and moreover, in case of any interim bail also there is likelihood that the Court below will be influenced by the order of this Court and will decide the petition for custody trial in a negative way.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv%2BOVqwSxOM7U6FOXUm9GS%2Bn5tAtWHVHyIZ27VXHGi43I&caseno=BA/12/2026&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010000592026&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.