Calcutta High Court orders action against trial judges for failing to ensure legal aid for accused

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday ordered action against two judicial officers for their failure to offer a lawyer to an unrepresented accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act [Sudhar Mangar v. The State of West Bengal]..Justice Krishna Rao, while granting bail to accused Sudhar Mangar, found that neither the Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom he was produced after the arrest, nor the District & Sessions Judge (NDPS) court, where he was produced on completion of police remand, provided him legal aid."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," the Court ordered..Mangar was arrested on March 28, 2024, following the alleged seizure of 40 bottles of Rc-Kuff cough syrup from his house. He had approached the High Court for bail, stating that he was not informed the grounds of his arrest. It was argued that the arresting officer had violated his rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act.In response, the prosecution said it was not necessary to provide the grounds in writing. It was also argued that there are stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances..However, the Court found that there was no mention of the grounds of arrest in the arrest memo."In the arrest memo, it is mentioned that the petitioner will be produced before the Learned District and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Alipurduar on 29th March, 2024. It also appears that in the arrest memo, signature of his relative has taken along with signature of the petitioner. Admittedly in the arrest memo, it is not mentioned about the ground of arrest of the petitioner and there is no column in the arrest memo about information of ground of arrest," it observed..Although the Court noted that the written complaint, case diary and forwarding report stated that the grounds of arrest were explained to the accused, it observed that the State had not produced any document or evidence to show that the accused was actually informed of these groundsIt thus concluded that there was a violation of the rights guaranteed to the accused."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," it said..The Court emphasised that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as possible, 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," it said.In this backdrop, the Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused..Advocates Subhankar Dutta, Arjun Chowdhury, P Dutta Chowdhury, Sunayana Parveen, Riya Agarwal, Mantu Mandal, Bappaditya Roy, Soumyadeep Paul and Swagata Mitra represented the petitioner.Advocates Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Nilay Chakraborty and Biswarup Roy represented the State..[Read Judgment]