Tripura High Court

Sri Darshan Chakma And Another vs The State Of Tripura on 18 August, 2021

                              Page 1 of 5

                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                         A. B. No.40 of 2021
Sri Darshan Chakma and another.
                                               ............... Petitioner(s).
                                  Vs.
The State of Tripura.
                                              ............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) :     Mr. H. Debnath, Sr. Advocate.
For Respondent(s):      Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                              ORDER

18/08/2021

[1] This application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) was filed for

granting pre -arrest bail to the present petitioners in the event of

their arrest in Natun Bazar P.S. case No. 2021/ NTB/011 which

was registered under Sections 148,145,341,307,323,325 read

with Section 506 IPC.

[2] The matter was first heard on 02.07.2021 and after

hearing the counsel of the petitioners as well as the Public

Prosecutor, petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail for an interim

period on the following conditions:

" *********** ************ **************

(i) The petitioners will appear before the IO to face interrogation within a period of 2 days from today and thereafter, they will appear at the police station before the IO twice in a week until otherwise directed by this court.

(ii)They will not in any manner try to influence the witnesses of the case.

(iii)None of the petitioners will leave the jurisdiction of the police station without prior permission of the IO until further order.

(iv)They will extend fullest cooperation to the investigating agency for the purpose of early completion of the investigation."

[3] The matter was again heard on 14.07.2021 when the

interim protection granted to the petitioners was extended till

date by order dated 14.07.2021 which reads as under:

"[1] Heard Mr. H. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State respondents.

[2] The matter was last heard on 02.07.2021 when interim protection was granted to the accused petitioners by order dated 02.07.2021 which is as under:

"[1] This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) for granting pre -arrest bail to the present petitioners in the event of their arrest in Natun Bazar P.S. case No. 2021/ NTB/011 which has been registered under Sections 148,145,341,307,323,325 read with Section 506 IPC.

[2] Heard Mr.H.Debnath, learned counsel who is appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP who is representing the state respondent.

[3] On the factual score, case was registered on the basis of FIR lodged by one Sanjay Chakraborty, son of late Haradhan Chakraborty with the Officer in charge of Natun Bazar P.S on 12.04.2021 wherein said Sanjay Chakraborty alleged that the present petitioners along with their associates attacked him in his house at about 4 O'clock in the afternoon of 12.04.2021 with deadly weapons with the intention of killing him. As a result of their assault, theinformant and his family members received multiple injuries. The injury of the informant was so fatal that he lost his sense at the spot. Police rescued him and brought him to hospital where he received a prolonged treatment for recovery. The other injured were also takento the hospital who had to undergo various diagnostic tests and treatment for their recovery.

[4] Based on the said FIR, a case was registered and investigation of the case was taken up.

[5] Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have filed this application for pre arrest bail. [6] It is submitted by Mr.Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that other than Section 307, IPC, all other sections under which the petitioners have been booked are bailable. According to Mr.Debnath, learned counsel, the allegations lebelled against the petitioners does not attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC since the weapons allegedly used by the petitioners and the injuries allegedly suffered by the injured persons does not support the allegation that the petitioners were having an intention to kill the informant.

[7] According to learned counsel, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and as such they should be protected by granting anticipatory bail in favor of them. Mr.Debnath, learnedcounsel also refers to the order dated 23.06.2021 of this court whereby some of the FIR named accused of this case were granted anticipatory bail for an interim period till 14.07.2021 on the same set of allegations. According to Mr.Debnath, learned counsel, representing the petitioners, the present petitioners are similarly situated and same relief may be granted to them.

[8] Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP on the other hand, vehemently opposes the bail application. It is submitted by Mr.Datta, learned PP that the Apex Court in a catena of judgments has issued directions for not granting such relief to the accused persons who are either absconding or declared to be proclaimed offenders.. [9] Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of MP vs Pradeep Sharma reported in AIR 2014 SC 626,learned PP submits that the petitioners are not entitled to pre arrest bail because the investigating agency has approached the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for declaring the present petitioners proclaimed offenders and in such situation it would not be appropriate to grant custodial immunity to them by granting them pre arrest bail. Mr. Datta, learned PP has also referred to the injury reports available in the case diary and submits that several persons were injured from the alleged occurrence and they had to undergo CT Scan and other diagnostic tests and receive prolonged treatment in hospital for recovery and in these circumstances it would not be appropriate to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail at this premature stage of investigation. Learned PP therefore, urges the court to reject the bail application.

[10] Considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the police statement of the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency during the investigation of the case. Also seen the injury reports which demonstrates that slight injuries were received by all the injured and such injuries were caused by blunt object. No prima facie case of Section 307 has been made out. All other offences for which the petitioners have been booked are bailable.

[11] Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that in the event of their arrest the present petitioners may also be granted pre arrest bail till 14.07.2021 on their furnishing of bail bond of a sum of Rs.30,000/- with 01 surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the IO on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners will appear before the IO to face interrogation within a period of 2 days from today and thereafter, they will appear at the police station before the IO twice in a week until otherwise directed by this court.

(ii)They will not in any manner try to influence the witnesses of the case.

(iii)None of the petitioners will leave the jurisdiction of the police station without prior permission of the IO until further order.

(iv)They will extend fullest cooperation to the investigating agency for the purpose of early completion of the investigation.

Communicate this order to the IO.

Return the CD."

[3] In view of the materials available in the case diary and the submissions of the counsel representing the parties, the interim protection already granted to the accused petitioners is extended till 18.08.2021. However, the accused petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer at the concerned police station until further order once in a week instead of twice in a week.

Inform the investigating officer. "

[4] Today, Mr. H. Debnath, learned Sr. advocate

appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation

against the petitioners that they have ever misused their liberty

granted to them on bail. Counsel therefore, urges the Court for

confirmation of their bail.

[5] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P fairly submits that

petitioners have complied with the conditions imposed by this

Court while granting interim bail to them.

[6] Having heard learned counsel representing the parties

and having perused the materials available on record, it is ordered

that in the event of their arrest, petitioners namely, Darshan