The Calcutta High Court has taken serious note of the failure of two judicial officers—the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the District & Sessions Judge (NDPS), Alipurduar—to provide legal aid to a man accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court, while granting bail to the accused Sudhar Mangar, noted that he remained unrepresented during his production before both judges, violating his constitutional right to legal representation.
"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," stated Justice Krishna Rao in his order dated June 11, 2025.
The accused was arrested on March 28, 2024, after 40 bottles of "Rc-Kuff" cough syrup—each 100 ml—were allegedly seized from his house by the Jaigaon Police. He was then produced before the magistrate and later before the NDPS Court, but on both occasions, he had no lawyer to defend him.
Justice Rao noted that the arrest memo did not contain any information or documentation proving that the accused was informed of the grounds for his arrest at the time of being taken into custody.
"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," observed the court.
The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Arjun Chowdhury, argued that neither written nor effective communication of the grounds of arrest was made, which is a mandatory constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1). He supported his argument with judgments from the Supreme Court, including Prabir Purkayastha vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, which stressed the need for effective and intelligible communication of arrest grounds.
Read Also:-Calcutta High Court Emphasizes Pet Owners' Duty to Prevent Harm from Animals
In contrast, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that while the arrest memo lacked a written note, the grounds of arrest were verbally conveyed and were also mentioned in the case diary, written complaint, and forwarding memo to the court.
However, the High Court pointed out that such records were not communicated to the accused and that no evidence was provided to prove effective communication at the time of arrest. Further, on his production before the court on March 29 and again on April 1, 2024, after the police remand, no legal representation was provided by the court.
"Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the ground for such arrest. 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," stated the court.
Read Also:-Calcutta High Court Upholds Automatic Compensation for Dependents of Deceased Workers
Given the violation of fundamental rights, the court granted bail to Sudhar Mangar on a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of ₹10,000 each, with the condition that one of the sureties must be a local resident. The accused is also restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of Jaigaon Police Station without court permission and must attend every court hearing.
The court emphasized that the failure of the judiciary to ensure legal aid to an unrepresented accused is a serious matter and directed the Registrar General to bring this lapse to the attention of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court for necessary action.
