Tripura High Court
Sri Satyajit Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 15 September, 2021
Page - 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B. No. 65 of 2021
Sri Satyajit Tripura
----- Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.R. Barman, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, Public Prosecutor.
B_E_F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
15/09/2021
The case is taken up today for hearing and order.
[2] Heard Mr. A.R. Barman, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P appearing for the
State respondent.
[3] The bare facts necessary for disposal of the petition is as
under:
Sri Jayanta Debbarma, Superintendent of Excise of
Ambassa lodged a written FIR against the petitioner on 26.08.2021
with the Officer in Charge of Chawmanu police station alleging, inter
Page - 2 of 7
alia, that the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee of a sum of
Rs.20,22,400/- to participate in the e-tender process for retail licence
for running a foreign liquor shop at Chawmanu. The said bank
guarantee was shown to have been issued from the Tripura State
Cooperative Bank, Chawmanu branch signed by its Manager Ranjan
Debbarma on 28.04.2020. After the petitioner was found otherwise
eligible, the licensing authority relying on the said bank guarantee,
granted license to the petitioner to run the said FL shop at Chawmanu.
Recently, the petitioner surrendered his licence to the Collector of
Excise. Immediately thereafter, the Collector of Excise forfeited a part
of his security deposit for which the bank guarantee was given. In this
regard, the informant wrote a letter dated 05.07.2021 to the Manager
of the Chawmanu branch of Tripura State Cooperative Bank informing
him that a sum of Rs.14,08,280/- of the said bank guarantee was
forfeited by the Collector of Excise from the security deposit of the
petitioner due to the surrender of his licence. Accordingly, the
informant requested the said Manager of Tripura State Cooperative
Bank to realize the said forfeited amount of Rs.14,08,280/- from the
security deposit furnished in the form of bank guarantee and deposit
the said sum in the account of the informant under Treasury Challan
No.41, Challan ID No. 860 dated 05.07.2021 and refund to the
petitioner the rest amount of Rs.6,14,120/-. The present Branch
Manager of the Chawmanu branch of Tripura State Cooperative Bank
vide his letter dated 06.08.2021 informed the Superintendent of
Page - 3 of 7
Excise, Jawaharnagar, Ambassa that the said bank guarantee
furnished by the petitioner was forged document and no such bank
guarantee was ever issued from the State Cooperative Bank. Sri
Ranjan Debbarma, the then Branch Manager of the bank who was
stated to have signed the alleged bank guarantee also made a
correspondence in writing with the present Branch Manager of the
bank informing him that no such bank guarantee was ever signed by
him and the document furnished by the petitioner was fake. By way of
lodging the FIR, the Superintendent of Excise, Dhalai District
requested the Officer in Charge of Chawmanu police station to take
immediate action against the petitioner.
[4] Based on the said FIR, Chawmanu PS case No.2021 CMN
019 under sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC was registered and the case
was endorsed to SI Subir Saha for investigation.
[5] Apprehending arrest, petitioner has approached this court
seeking pre arrest bail under section 438, Cr.P.C.
[6] Mr. A.R. Barman, counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that petitioner's foreign liquor shop at Chawmanu was looted
by the political opponent of his father and he was compelled by them
to surrender the licence of his foreign liquor shop to the Collector of
Excise. Immediately after he surrendered his licence, the licensing
authority forfeited his security deposit without affording any
Page - 4 of 7
opportunity of hearing to him. Aggrieved by the said action of the
licensing authority, petitioner has also filed a writ petition in this High
Court seeking remedy. Counsel, submits that petitioner submitted the
said bank guarantee in the year 2020. The Collector of Excise accepted
the document after scrutiny and issued licence in his favour. No
question was ever raised by the licensing authority with regard to the
authenticity of the said document. Now, suddenly, he has been
implicated in a false case on the charge of forging the said document
and a fabricated FIR has been lodged against him with a view to
harass him. Counsel, submits that it would be quite impossible for the
petitioner to forge a document of this nature by using the seal of the
bank. Counsel submits that the said bank guarantee is a genuine
document and the petitioner is innocent. Counsel, therefore, urges the
court for granting pre arrest bail to the accused petitioner to protect
him from unnecessary arrest and detention.
[7] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P robustly opposes the bail
application. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in P.
Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2019)
9 SCC 24 Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P submits that in the said judgment,
the Apex Court has succinctly held that power under section 438,
Cr.P.C is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised
sparingly. Learned P.P relies on paragraph 69 of the said judgment
wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
Page - 5 of 7
"69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of
the investigation to secure not only the presence
of the accused but several other purposes. Power
under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power
and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The
privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted
only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion
conferred upon the court has to be properly
exercised after application of mind as to the
nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility
of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to
decide whether it is a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to
some extent interferes in the sphere of
investigation of an offence and hence, the court
must be circumspect while exercising such power
for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is
not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to
be granted only when the court is convinced that
exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that
extraordinary remedy."
[8] Relying on the materials available in the case diary, Mr.
Datta, learned P.P submits that Sri Ranjan Debbarma who was the
Manager of Chawmanu branch of Tripura State Cooperative Bank at
the relevant time has made written communication with his bank by
his letter dated 27.07.2021 and said Ranjan Debbarma has also given
police statement under section 161 Cr.P.C before the investigating
officer denying his signature on the said bank guarantee. According to
him, it is a completely forged document. The present Branch Manager
of the said branch of Tripura State Cooperative Bank by his letter
dated 06.08.2021 has also informed the Superintendent of Excise,
Ambassa that no such bank guarantee was ever issued from the
Page - 6 of 7
Tripura State Cooperative Bank. Therefore, when the licensing
authority requested the concerned branch of Tripura State
Cooperative Bank to realize the forfeited amount of Rs.14,08,280/-
from the security deposit of the petitioner after his licence was
surrendered, the bank declined the request on the ground that no
such bank guarantee was ever issued from Tripura State Cooperative
Bank. It is submitted by learned P.P that in these circumstances, a
fair investigation would be impossible if the accused is granted pre
arrest bail. Learned P.P, therefore, urges the court to reject his bail
application.
[9] Considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing
for the parties. Perused the record including the updated case diary.
[10] A detailed exploration of the materials available against
the accused at this stage would be inappropriate. From the facts
stated above, a good prima facie case has been made out against the
petitioner. There is no doubt that the allegations are serious and a fair
investigation is necessary to verify the statement of Ranjan
Debbarma, the then Branch Manager of the bank by forensic
examination of his signatures. How the bank guarantee was accepted
by the licensing authority without scrutiny and who helped the
petitioner in procuring the seal of the bank and manufacturing the
document also need to be investigated into. In view of the
Page - 7 of 7
seriousness of the matter and its ramification, the investigation
should be properly directed. There is merit in the submission of
learned P.P that in the given circumstances, custodial interrogation of
the accused is necessary and his release on pre arrest bail is likely to
impair a fair investigation. I have also considered the nature of the
offence, the manner in which it was allegedly committed, the
punishment prescribed for the offence, likelihood of his influencing the
witnesses and/or tampering with evidence in the event of his release
on bail and all other settled parameters which are relevant for
consideration of such bail application.
[11] I am of the considered view that in the facts and
circumstances of the case and materials available on record, the
accused petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Therefore, his
bail petition stands rejected and the case is disposed of.
Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Rudradeep
