PMLA | Accused Appearing on Summons Can’t Be Sent to Custody: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court has held that an individual who appears before a Special Court pursuant to a summons cannot be taken into custody and compelled to seek bail, especially in cases where investigating agencies did not arrest him during the probe. The bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha has observed that if an accused is not arrested during investigation and appears after receiving a summons, he cannot be remanded to custody merely because he has appeared before the Court. The court may instead require him to execute a bond under Section 88 CrPC to ensure appearance. Taking an accused into custody and forcing him to seek bail is “completely illegal,” as held by the Supreme Court.The NDPS Act does not contain provisions inconsistent with CrPC Sections 88 or 205, making these provisions fully applicable. The DRI’s complaint was valid, as the law permits complaints filed by an officer of the Central Government on behalf of the Government. The case originates from a major drug haul on June 4, 2024, when DRI officials, acting on specific intelligence, intercepted a Maruti Suzuki XL6 (AS11-AB-3690) near Kamalghat Bridge on the Khowai–Agartala route. A search of the vehicle led to the recovery of 15 kg of pink Yaba tablets, concealed in the vehicle’s bonnet and an inbuilt rear compartment. Forensic examination later confirmed the tablets contained methamphetamine and caffeine, classifying the seizure under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. The vehicle was being driven by Mohammed Dawait, with Rahul Ghosh as a passenger. Both were detained on the spot and later charge-sheeted. The DRI alleged that the vehicle belonged to Moudud Ahmed Choudhury, who was not present during the interception. During the investigation, DRI officers twice attempted to serve summons on Choudhury through his family members. Since he did not appear, investigators marked him as an absconder in the final report.The DRI filed its final complaint under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 25(a), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act, treating the charge-sheet as a “complaint” under Section 36-A(1)(d) of the Act. After the Court took cognizance on December 5, 2024, a summons was issued to Choudhury. He appeared voluntarily before the Special Judge on July 14, 2025. However, instead of allowing him to furnish a bond under Section 88 CrPC, the Special Court took him into judicial custody, where he remained after multiple bail rejections. Senior advocate Sankar Lodh argued that the Special Court’s action was contrary to law, since an accused appearing on summons cannot be remanded to custody. The DRI complaint was defective as it was filed in the name of the “Union of India,” which he said was not envisaged under Section 36-A(1)(d). There was no evidence linking the accused to the contraband apart from vehicle ownership, and the driver’s statement implicated one Kamal Roy, who allegedly instructed the transportation. He further argued that the accused never personally received earlier notices served through family members. The DRI submitted that the accused evaded investigation, justifying custody upon his appearance. Sufficient prima facie materials existed under the NDPS Act, triggering the stringent bar on bail under Section 37. Proper government authorization empowered DRI officers to file the complaint and prosecute the matter. The court noted that although Tarsem Lal concerned the PMLA, its principles apply equally to NDPS cases, since both statutes recognize Special Courts as Courts of Sessions and permit application of CrPC provisions unless inconsistent. The Court held that since the accused was never arrested during investigation. He appeared voluntarily upon receiving the summons, and the law only permits the Court to take a bond under Section 88. The Special Judge’s decision to remand him to custody was contrary to settled law. The Court rejected the argument questioning the maintainability of the DRI complaint, holding that a complaint filed by an authorized officer of the Central Government is legally valid even if filed “on behalf of the Union of India.” The High Court ordered immediate release of accused Moudud Ahmed Choudhury. He shall furnish a bond under Section 88 CrPC of an amount fixed by the Special Judge. One surety is required. The accused must submit an undertaking to appear regularly and punctually before the trial court. The Court declined to examine the merits of the NDPS case, noting that the bail question itself did not arise once the custody was found to be illegal. Case Details Case Title: Shri Rupak Shil Versus Union of India Case No.: Bail Application No.95 Of 2025 Date: 27.11.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Sankar Lodh, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Arindam Ray, Advocate Click Here To Read Order Read More: Calcutta High Court Quashes Order Forcing Former Director to Represent Company in PMLA Case

PMLA | Accused Appearing on Summons Can’t Be Sent to Custody: Tripura High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

‘Bail Is the Rule’: Maharashtra Court Grants Bail to Three Accused in ₹2.82 Crore DRI Firecracker Smuggling Case

CJI Surya Kant Rebukes ‘Reckless’ Media Reports, Says No Plea Was Filed on CJP Protest Police Action

Cabinet Clears Tougher Anti-Paper Leak Bill; 10-Year Jail, ₹10 Crore Fine Proposed

Bombay High Court Notifies Special Courts for Trial of Paper Leak Cases Under Public Examinations Act, 2024

More like this

‘Bail Is the Rule’: Maharashtra Court Grants Bail to Three Accused in ₹2.82 Crore DRI Firecracker Smuggling Case

CJI Surya Kant Rebukes ‘Reckless’ Media Reports, Says No Plea Was Filed on CJP Protest Police Action

Cabinet Clears Tougher Anti-Paper Leak Bill; 10-Year Jail, ₹10 Crore Fine Proposed

About us

Company

Categories