Tripura High Court
Ali Akbar Miah vs The State Of Tripura Represented ... on 31 March, 2021
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
BA 20 of 2021
Ali Akbar Miah ------Petitioner(s)
on behalf of
Ahamed Ali,S/O. Lt. Rahim Miah, R/O. Vill- Uttar Gokulnagar, P.O-
Chakmaghat, P.S- Teliamura, Dist.- Khowai, Tripura, Pin- 799205
-------Accused(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura represented by PP, High Court of Tripura,
Agartala.
-----Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Adv.
Mr. J.Das, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, PP
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
31.03.2021
[1] This application has been filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) for granting bail
to accused Ahmded Ali who is an FIR named accused in Case No. Spl.
POCSO 10 of 2020 arising out of Telialmura P.S. case No. 2020
TLM079 which has been registered under Sections 341 and 376D IPC
read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 based on the FIR lodged
by the victim herself(name withheld to hide her identity).
[2] Heard Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, learned Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr.J.Das, learned advocate for the petitioner.
Heard Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP representing the State
respondent.
[3] The factual context of the case is as under:
The victim lodged FIR with the Officer-in-charge of
Teliamura police station on 22.07.2020 alleging that on 21.07.2020
accused Rupesh Sarkar made a telephonic call to her and asked her to
come to Chakma Ghat Bazar. Pursuant to the said call received from
Rupesh Sarkar, she arrived at Chakma Ghat Bazar at around 4.30 P.M.
and started roaming with Rupesh. After they roamed together for about
½ an hour in the area, she was about to return home. Accused Rupesh
then offered her a lift in a vehicle. There were 02 vehicles, one was of
white coloured WagonR and another vehicle was Alto. Both the
vehicles allegedly came from Tuimadhu side to Chakma Ghat Bazar. In
one of those vehicles, there were Kasem, Gania and Choto Mona
(present petitioner) and Jedu. Allegedly they caught hold of the victim
and put her inside the vehicle. Then they had taken her to
Khasiamangal area and committed raped on her one after another inside
the vehicle. Consequently, she lost her consciousness. After she
regained her consciousness, she was again raped by them. At about
8.30 P.M the accused persons left her in front of United Bank of India
at Maharanipur from where accused Rupesh and one of his friends
lifted her on their motor bike and dropped her at Maiganga Rail bridge.
The neighbouring people, having noticed her in that condition brought
her to the police station.
[4] It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner has been in custody for more than 8 months since his arrest
on 27.04.2020. It is submitted by Mr.Samarat Kar Bhowmik, learned
Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner that on the same set of
materials available on record, co accused Jehad Miah has been released
on bail by this court vide order dated 17.02.2021 in Bail Application 11
of 2021.
[5] It is further contended by learned counsel that there is no
material against the accused justifying his further detention in custody.
It is further contended that investigation has been complete and charge
sheet has been filed in the case and detention of the accused is no
longer necessary for the purpose of investigation. Further submission
on behalf of the petitioner is that even in the forensic report, certified
copies of which have been obtained by the petitioner, the conclusion of
the forensic expert is contrary to his findings recorded in the report.
Learned counsel having relied on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in Karan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in
MANU/HP/1267/2020 submits that the present accused does not have
any past criminal records and he has been implicated in the case only
on the basis of the suspicion and his identification by the victim is also
subject to challenge. Learned counsel referring to paragraphs 9 and 11,
therefore, urges the court for release of the accused on bail. The
observation of the High Court in para 9 and 11 of the said judgment are
as under:
"9. Pre-trial incarceration needs justification
depending upon the offense's heinous nature, terms of
the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a crime,
probability of the accused fleeing from justice,
hampering the investigation, criminal history of the .
accused, and doing away with the victim(s) and
witnesses. The Court is under an obligation to maintain
a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the
interests of the victim, accused, society, and State.
However, while deciding bail applications, the Courts
should discuss evidence relevant only for determining
bail. The difference in the order of bail and final
judgment is similar to a sketch and a painting.
However, some sketches are in detail and paintings
with a few strokes.
11. An analysis of entire evidence does not justify
further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to
achieve any significant purpose. Without commenting
on the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation
and the period of incarceration already undergone
would make out a case for bail.
Apart from all these grounds Mr.Kar Bhowmik, learned
Sr. Advocate also submits that mother of the petitioner has fallen
seriously ill who is bed ridden and there is none to lookafter his mother
at home.
[6] Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand refers to the
statement of the victim recorded during the investigation where the
victim had categorically stated that the present petitioner first
committed rape on her followed by the other accused persons. It is
submitted by Mr. Datta, learned PP that the offence relates to gang rape
by the present petitioner who is one of the two principal accused of this
case. According to Mr.Datta, if he is released on bail, the trial of the
case will be seriously affected because the accused is very likely to
influence the victim to get rid of the penal consequences.
[7] It is also submitted by learned PP that after hearing leaned
counsel of the parties this court by a detailed order dated 17.02.2021,
rejected the bail application of the present accused and there is no
change in the circumstances for fresh consideration of his bail
application. Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that two
other accused of the case are still absconding. On the premises
aforesaid, learned counsel urges the court to reject his bail application.
[8] I have given anxious consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is true that the accused is in custody for
quite a long period of time. But the victim in her FIR categorically
stated that he was first person to commit rape on her followed by other
accused persons.
[9] The allegation against him is serious which involves grave
penal consequences. It is also found that two other accused are still
absconding and the materials available on record make out a strong
prima facie case against the petitioner. Having considered all
parameters, I am of the view that, it would not be appropriate to allow
bail to the accused at this stage.
Resultantly, his bail petition stands rejected.
JUDGE
Saikat Sarma, P.A
