The State Of Tripura vs Sri Sukanta Gupta
2021 Latest Caselaw 570 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 10

                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                               B A. No.19 of 2021
The State of Tripura, represented by Ld. Public Prosecutor.
                                                     ............... Petitioner(s).
                                      Vs.
Sri Sukanta Gupta,
Son of Sri Sukenduy Bikash Gupta,
R/o. Singerbill, P.O & P.S- Airport.
District- West Tripura.
                                            ............... Accused-Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) :        Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.
For Respondent(s):         Mr. N. G. Nandi, Advocate.

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

                                   ORDER

19/05/2021

[1] By means of filing this petition under Sub-Section (2) of

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C

hereunder), the State has approached this court seeking

cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondent by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala (Court No.2) vide impugned

order dated 15.02.2021.

[2] After the petition was filed, notice was issued to the

accused respondent who has recorded his appearance through his

appointed advocate. Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public

Prosecutor, representing the State as well as Mr. N.G. Nandi,

learned advocate representing the accused respondent.

[3] Before I advert to the submissions of learned counsel

representing the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the

factual background of the case which is as under:

Sri Mrinal Kanti Deb, an engineer employed in a private

company named, M/s. J. C. Enterprise of Silchar, Assam came to

Agartala on 31.12.2020 by an Indigo flight from Guwahati to submit

documents in the CPWD office at Usha Bazar after the tenders of his

company were accepted by CPWD as the lowest bidder for two

construction projects at Agartala. Having arrived at Agartala, he

reported at Royal Guest House where he booked his accommodation

and from there he met the concerned Executive Engineer at the

CPWD office. As soon as he left the CPWD office after doing his

work, the 3(three) FIR named accused along with another forcibly

lifted him in a scorpio vehicle of white colour from near the CPWD

office at Usha Bazar. Inside the vehicle, the accused persons, had

snatched away his cell phone and all documents. After a while they

stopped the vehicle at an unknown place. The accused persons then

gave some instructions to someone over phone. Immediately

thereafter, another scorpio of black colour, a scotty and a motor

bike arrived there and all of them started beating the informant.

Accused Raju Barman instructed him to go back to Shillong and

withdraw the tender. From there they had taken the informant to

some other places. At night, they kept him in confinement in an

unknown house near Bharat Ratna club. At about 1.30 „O‟ clock in

the night they released him on the road near a patrol pump. After

his release, he contacted the owner of his company over telephone

who told him, that accused Biman Das also called his owner from

cell phone No.7640982720 and asked him to withdraw the tender

failing which he would face serious consequence.

[4] Sashi Mohan Debbarma, Inspector of Police and Officer-

in-charge of Airport police station reduced the oral complaint of the

complainant into writing and registered Airport P.S Case

No.21APR001 under Sections 364A read with Section 34 IPC against

accused namely, Raju Barman, Biman Das, Rakesh and others and

the investigation of the case was endorsed to U. Rahaman, a Sub-

Inspector of Police.

[5] Apprehending arrest in the case, Sukanta Gupta, the

accused respondent herein, filed an application in the Sessions

Court seeking pre-arrest bail under 438 Cr. P.C which was heard by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala (Court No.2) and

bail was granted to the said accused respondent by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 15.02.2021

observing as under:

"On perusal of L.C. Record as well as the CD I am of the considered opinion that the alleged offences may attract Section 363/342/506/34 of IPC. The alleged offences may not attract Section 364A of IPC on the reasoning that there is no material in the record to show that the miscreants have demanded ransom. We are further prima facie of the opinion that the material so far available may also not attract Section 382B of IPC. In this view of the matter I find it appropriate to allow the bail application.

Accordingly, accused namely, Sukanta Gupta is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Authority on condition that the petitioner shall not temper / terrorize the prosecution evidence/ witnesses and that he shall also not leave the territorial limits of this court without prior permission of the Lower court where the original case is pending. The accused petitioner shall also appear before the IO twice in a week.

                   The bail application      accordingly    stands
            disposed of..........."


[6]         Aggrieved with the said order, State has filed this

application for cancellation of bail mainly on the following grounds:

(i) A strong prima facie case under Section 364A and

382B IPC (Tripura Amendment) has been made out

against the accused respondent. The Additional Sessions

Judge did not consider the seriousness and implication

of the offence and the materials available against the

accused while exercising his jurisdiction under Section

438 Cr.P.C.

[ii] As a result of granting pre-arrest bail to the

accused respondent, the whole investigation has been

impaired and it has been quite difficult for the

investigating agency to book the associates of the

present accused respondent.

[iii] Before he was granted bail, several notices were

issued to him under Section 41A Cr. P.C. But he did not

turn up at the police station to face interrogation.

[iv] Accused respondent never cooperated with the

investigation agency.

According to learned P.P, all these materials were

placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who

granted bail to the accused without taking these

materials into consideration.

[7] It is argued by Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public

Prosecutor that even after bail was granted by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, the accused respondent did not co-

operate with the Investigating Agency, as a result of which the

Investigating Agency has been facing extreme difficulties in carrying

out the investigation of the case. Learned counsel therefore, urges

the Court to cancel the bail granted to the accused and commit him

to the custody.

[8] Mr. N. G. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the

accused respondent on the other hand submits that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail to the accused by

a detailed order after taking into consideration all materials which

were placed before the Court. According to Mr. Nandi, learned

advocate, the accused respondent is not an FIR named accused in

the case and no incriminating materials are available on record

against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore,

rightly granted pre-arrest bail to him. It is further contended by Mr.

Nandi, learned advocate that bail once granted cannot be cancelled

unless it is established that the accused has abused his liberty or

there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the

course of justice if he is allowed to remain on bail. In support of his

contention, Mr. Nandi has referred to the decision of the Apex Court

in STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VRS. SANJAY GANDHI;

reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411. Mr. Nandi has also referred to the

decision dated 7th January, 2020 of the Supreme Court in Criminal

Appeal Nos. 1974-1975 of 2019 (SLP (Crl.)Nos.8882-8883 of 2019)

wherein the Apex Court while examining the law relating to

cancellation of bail held as follows:

"7. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 2 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.

8. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.

9. Having perused the law laid down by this Court on the scope of the power to be exercised in the matter of cancellation of bails, it is necessary to examine whether the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail is perverse and suffers from infirmities which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. No doubt, the Sessions Court did not discuss the material on record in detail, but there is an indication from the orders by which bail was granted that the entire material was perused before grant of bail. It is not the case of either the complainant- Respondent No.2 or the State that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account by the Sessions Court while granting bail to the Appellants. The order of the Sessions Court by which the bail was granted to the Appellants cannot be termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of the fact that the investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of the Appellant tampering with the evidence.

10. The petition filed for cancellation of bail is both on the grounds of illegality of the order passed by the Sessions Court and the conduct of the Appellants subsequent to their release after bail was granted. The complaint filed by one Bojja Ravinder to the Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar is placed on

record by Respondent No.2. It is stated in the complaint that the Appellants were roaming freely in the village and threatening witnesses. We have perused the complaint and found that the allegations made therein are vague. There is no mention about which accused out of the 15 indulged in acts of holding out threats to the witnesses or made an attempt to tamper with the evidence.

11. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and examining the material on record, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in cancelling the bail of the Appellants. The orders passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be termed as perverse. The complaint alleging that the Appellants were influencing witnesses is vague and is without any details regarding the involvement of the Appellants in threatening the witnesses. Therefore, the Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside."

According to Mr. Nandi, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge has granted bail to the accused by a speaking order after

taking into consideration all relevant facts and as such, there is no

ground to cancel the bail granted to the accused respondent.

Learned counsel therefore, urges the Court to reject the application

seeking cancellation of bail.

[9] Matter with regard to cancellation of bail has been

discussed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. Some of which

are as follows:

(i) In DOLAT RAM AND OTHERS VRS. STATE OF

HARYANA; reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 the Apex Court held

that cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for

directing cancellation of bail wherein the Apex Court has observed

as under:

"4. ****** Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of

bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. *****."

(ii) Same principle was reiterated in MAHANT

CHAND NATH YOGI AND ANOTHER VRS. STATE OF HARYANA;

reported in (2003) 1 SCC 326 wherein the Apex Court has

observed as under:

"17. This Court in Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra & Anr. [2000 SCC (Cri) 1508] following the principles stated in Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] has reiterated that there is a distinction between rejection of bail in a non- bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted. Normally, very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. In the present case, the High Court, it appears, did not bear this distinction in mind and cancelled the bail in a mechanical manner."

[10] Perused the materials placed before the Court and

considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing

the parties. The case diary has disclosed that the accused

respondent is a government employee in the R.D Department. The

police statements of several witnesses support his involvement in

the alleged offence. It has surfaced on record that the accused

respondent even visited the office of the bidder at Shillong to

prevent them from submitting tender in respect of the said projects.

After the tender was accepted by CPWD, the accused respondent

along with other FIR named accused persons started creating

pressure on the bidder to withdraw the tender. Ultimately, the

accused respondent along with his associates abducted the

informant who is an employee of the said bidder and physically

assaulted him. The record of the call details generated from the cell

phone of the accused supporting his involvement in the alleged

offence has also been produced along with the case diary. Learned

Additional Sessions Judge, while granting pre-arrest bail to the

accused did not appreciate the implication of the offence and the

fact that the associates of the accused respondent were still

absconding who did not even respond to the notice issued by the

Investigating Agency under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

[11] Purpose of anticipatory bail is to prevent harassment

and humiliation by unjustified arrest and detention of the accused.

While exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr. P.C, the Court

should also keep in mind that pre-arrest release of accused in a

case where there are justifiable grounds for his arrest and detention

is likely to affect a free, fair and full investigation of the case. In the

given case, the accused who is a Government employee is alleged

to have been interfering with the CPWD tender works as a

negotiator. Prosecution has brought to record enough incriminating

materials against him in support of the allegations against the

accused respondent. Apparently, the accused respondent did not

turn up despite issuance of frequent notices under Section 41A, Cr.

PC against him. Having examined the matter in the light of the

judgments of the Apex Court cited to supra, I am of the considered

view that accused respondent should not have been granted

custodial immunity by way of granting pre-arrest bail to him. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the facts that

allegations against the accused respondent were serious which

required a thorough investigation and that the accused was not co-

operating with the investigating agency and also the fact that all

other accused of the case were still absconding.

[12] In view of what has been discussed above, bail granted

to the accused respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge , West

Tripura, Agartala (Court No.2) vide impugned order dated

15.02.2021 passed in BA No.26 of 2021 stands cancelled. The

investigating agency is at liberty to arrest the accused respondent

and take him into custody.

In terms of the above, this application stands allowed

and disposed of.

JUDGE

Dipankar