For vs Mrs. S. Banik Deb
2021 Latest Caselaw 867 Tri

                                     Page 1 of 3




                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                       I.A. No.01/2021 in Crl.A(J) No.09/2021

For Applicant(s)                    : Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Advocate,
                                      Mrs. S. Banik Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                   : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order

08/09/2021 (Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

This interim application is filed by the original accused

convicts for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

IPC. They request for suspension of sentence and enlarging them on bail

pending appeal. Learned counsel for the applicants argued this application

more vigorously for applicant No.2. He submitted that the entire case is

based on circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance brought on

record to establish involvement of the applicant No.2 in commission of the

offence.

On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted

that there is sufficient evidence to establish the charge against both the

accused. Once the Sessions Court has recorded conviction of the accused by

a well reasoned judgment, this Court would not release the convicts on bail,

particularly looking to the fact that they have been awarded death penalty.

We do not find that either of the accused have made out any

case for granting bail. Deceased was the husband of accused No.1. As per

prosecution, the accused No.1 had illicit relations with accused No.2. They

had committed murder of the husband of the applicant No.1 to eliminate

him. Prima facie, it would appear that there is evidence of illicit relationship

between the two accused. The record would further show that the death took

place in the house of the deceased where he resided with his wife accused

No.1. The incident took place late at night. As per the medical evidence the

cause of death was strangulation and was homicidal in nature. The body was

burnt after causing death with inflammable substance like petrol. The

accused No.1 was present in the house when the incident took place. The

prosecution has also brought on record evidence of the accused No.2 having

procured petrol shortly before the incident. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor

correctly pointed out that the accused No.2 had spent the night in the house

of the father of the deceased which was located close to the house of the

deceased, under the pretext that his house (which was not close by) was

damaged and under repair.

At this stage, therefore, in our opinion no case for bail is made

out.

Application is dismissed.

   (ARINDAM LODH), J                       (AKIL KURESHI), CJ



Pulak