Tripura High Court
Mr. D. Datta vs Mr. R. Datta on 30 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A No. 46 of 2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Datta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
30/06/2021
[1] This application under section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C hereunder), 1973 has been filed on behalf of
accused Abdul Rahaman Sarkar of Udaipur who has been arrested and
detained in custody w.e.f. 05.06.2021 in R.K. Pur Women PS case No.
27 of 2021 under sections 498A, 109, 328 read with section 34 IPC.
[2] The factual context of the case is as under:
Smt. Ruma Begam, wife of Md. Abdul Mannan Sarkar of
Kakraban, Udaipur lodged a written complaint with the officer in charge
of R.K. Pur police station, alleging, inter alia, that she was married to
accused Abdul Mannan Sarkar on 12.10.2009 in accordance with the
customs of Muslim marriage. Pursuant to the demand of her husband,
cash amount of Rs.25,000/- along with other valuables including colour
TV, furniture, jewellery etc were given by her parents to her in laws.
Even, thereafter her accused husband Abdul Mannan Sarkar, accused
brother in law Abdul Rahaman Sarkar (petitioner) and accused mother
in law Amena Bibi started committing torture upon her for bringing
more Rs.50,000/- in cash from her parents. Since her parents failed to
meet their demand, they accelerated torture on the complainant.
However, a son was born to her within her wedlock with accused Abdul
Mannan Sarkar who is now 11 years old. On 13.03.2021, at about 7
O'clock in the evening all accused tortured her and poured poison into
her mouth. When she raised alarm, the neighbouring people rescued
her and brought her to the District hospital. After her release from the
hospital she was again taken back to her matrimonial home by her in
laws. On 05.05.2021, at about 10 O'clock at night, the accused
petitioners again tried to kill her. The neighbours saved her. They had
taken her to her parents from where she lodged the complaint in the
police station.
[3] Based on her complaint, R.K. Pur Women PS case No. 27
of 2021 under section 498A, 328, 109 read with section 34 IPC was
registered and the case was taken up for investigation.
[4] Heard Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner who submits that the present petitioner is the brother in law
of the complainant who lives in a separate house away from the house
of husband of the complainant. It is contended by Mr. Datta, learned
counsel of the petitioner that the present petitioner has no role in the
commission of offence. Learned counsel refers to the decision of the
Apex Court in Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in
(1995) 1 SCC 349 in support of his contention that in a case where
the factum of separate residence has been proved bail may be granted
to the accused in such circumstances. Learned counsel has also referred
to the decision of the Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab
reported in AIR 2000 SC 2324 wherein the Apex Court has held that
in laws of the deceased cannot be booked under section 498A IPC only
on the ground of their close relations with the husband of the deceased.
Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel has further referred to the decision of the
Apex Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 in support of his contention that in a
case under section 498A IPC the allegations against the in laws of the
complainant should be scrutinized with great care and circumspection
specially against the relatives of the husband who are living in different
cities and rarely visited the house of the complainant. It is contended by
Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel of the accused petitioner that in the given
case the brother in law of the complainant lived in a distant place and
he rarely visit the house of the complainant and as such he cannot be
implicated in the case. On the premises aforesaid, learned counsel
urges the court for releasing the accused petitioner on bail.
[5] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P who opposes the bail
application and contends that serious allegations have been brought by
the complainant against her accused husband, accused brother in law
and accused mother in law. It is submitted by Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P
that the son of the complainant was present at the time of occurrence
and he witnessed the entire incidence. According to Mr. Datta, learned
P.P the medical report also support the allegation that poison was
administered to the complainant. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr.
Datta, learned P.P that there are sufficient materials available on record
to justify the detention of the accused petitioner in custody. It is further
contended by learned P.P that the accused petitioner being the brother
in law of the complainant is likely to influence the witnesses of the case
in case of his release on bail and as such his release will spoil the entire
investigation of the case.
[6] Considered the submissions of learned counsel
representing the parties. Perused the case diary and other materials
available on record. There is no doubt that serious allegations are
brought against the petitioner. Strong prima facie case has been made
out against him. Since he is a near relative of the complainant as well
as of the victim likelihood of his influencing the witnesses of the case in
case of his release on bail cannot be ruled out. The judgments relied on
by the learned counsel of petitioner were given in a different factual
context which is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and
as such the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from those decisions.
Allegedly, the petitioner joined his accused brother in administering
poison to the victim who is his sister in law and after her release from
hospital she was taken back to her in laws' house where second attempt
was allegedly made on her life. 11 years' old son of the victim, who
witnessed the occurrence, gave statement against the petitioner. In
view of the seriousness of the offence and the incriminating
circumstances available against the petitioner, it would not be
appropriate to enlarge him on bail at this pre-mature stage of
investigation.
Resultantly, his bail application stands rejected.
Return the case diary to Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P.
JUDGE
Rudradeep
