Mr. Subrata Sarkar vs Mr. Ratan Datta
2021 Latest Caselaw 1286 Tri

                               Page 1 of 2




                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                          BA NO.91 OF 2021
For Petitioner(s)          :      Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Advocate
                                  Ms. Piyali Chakraborty, Advocate
                                  Mrs. Sima Bhowmik Deb, Advocate
For Respondent(s)          :      Mr. Ratan Datta, P.P.
                                  Mr. Sumit Debnath, Addl. P.P.

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

                               ORDER

21/12/2021

Heard Mr. Subrata Sarkar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Piyali Chakraborty and Mrs. Sima Bhowmik Deb, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned P.P. and Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State- respondent.

In the instant case the allegation is that the accused persons had raped the complainant. After completion of investigation and following the submission of charge-sheet, the investigating officer had sought for custodial trial, which the Court had allowed.

The bail petitions which were moved before this Court were also rejected on different dates.

Today, the instant bail petition has been moved on behalf of the four accused persons on the ground that this Court in its last order had directed the trial Court to complete the trial within 3(three) months from the date of opening of the regular Court. The said three months have already been elapsed over, but, the trial has not been completed and the next calendar date has been fixed on 24.01.2022.

Learned P.P. has fairly submitted that at this stage bail should not be granted to the accused persons. However, if the trial has not been

completed within the last date of calendar, as fixed by the learned trial Court, then, it may be considered. It is made further clear by the learned P.P. that there should be a rider that the defence i.e. the accused persons shall not seek any further adjournment in the proceeding of the case. Mr. Sarkar, learned senior counsel has submitted that the defence has not sought for any adjournment during the proceeding of the case. However, this statement of Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has been controverted by Mr. Datta, learned P.P., who has submitted that the defence had sought for several adjournments.

However, without entering the above rival contentions, I am of the view that at this stage this Court should refrain from granting bail to the accused persons.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, I deem it imperative to reject the instant bail application with a liberty to the accused persons to approach this Court, if the trial including the pronouncement of judgment has not been completed within the next two months. It is made clear that if within the next period of two months the trial as well as the pronouncement of judgment has not been completed, then, the Court will consider the bail application of the accused persons.

With the above observation and direction, the instant bail application stands rejected and disposed.

JUDGE