Sri Darshan Chakma And Anr vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 656 Tri

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                             AB 40 2021

Sri Darshan Chakma And Anr.                     ---------- Petitioner(s)
                         Versus
The State of Tripura
                                                 ------- Respondent(s)
                             BEFORE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H Debnath, Adv.
                    Ms.U Chanda, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, PP.

                               ORDER

02.07.2021 [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, the

informant 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 taken

to 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, learned

counsel 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.

JUDGE

Saikat Sarma, PA