Tripura High Court
Mr. B. Majumder vs Mr. P.K. Biswas on 30 August, 2022
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. PETN. NO.31 OF 2022
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Asst. S.G.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate.
Ms. S. Debbarma, Advocate.
30.08.2022
Order
It is the case of Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asst. S.G.
representing petitioner-Central Bureau of Investigation that bail
has been granted by the Court below to accused-respondent
No.1, Sri Tapan Debbarma, and accused-respondent No.2 Sri
Nand Kumar Reang in Case No.R.C.2/S/2018, CBI, SCB,
Kolkata dated 10.11.2021 and 16.11.2021.
The present common Criminal Revision Petition is said to
be filed on the sole ground that as on the date of granting of the
bail dated 10.11.2021 and 16.11.2021, the charge sheet has
been filed by the petitioner-CBI and the investigation was
completed. The charge sheet was filed in the year 2019 and the
same was on record. The said fact has been omitted by the Court
below and under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., default bail has been
granted.
Mr. B. Majumder learned Asst. S.G. relied on the
judgments of the Apex Court reported in (1994) 5 SCC 410
titled as Sanjay Dutt Vs. State Through CBI, Bombay, dated
09.09.1994, (2011) 10 SCC 445 titled as Pragyna Singh
Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra dated 23.09.2011 and
(1996) 1 SCC 722 titled as Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh
and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra dated 08.01.1996 and
prayed to cancel the order of the Court below dated 10.11.2021
and 16.11.2021.
Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. S.
Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the accused
respondents submitted before this Court that the other accused
persons in this alleged crime have been already released on bail
by this Hon'ble High Court in the year 2018. Learned Sr. counsel
contended that as on the date of arguing this case, the charge
sheet was very much present and it is the failure on the part of
the Public Prosecutor for not bringing it to the notice of the
Court. Hence, the Court below has passed the aforementioned
order dated 10.11.2021 and 16.11.2021 under Section 167 of Cr.
P.C. Learned Sr. counsel further argued that after completion of
90(ninety) days of the filing of the charge sheet under Section
167 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are entitled to bail.
To support his argument, Learned Sr. counsel has relied
upon the judgments of the Apex Court passed in Fakrey Ali Vs.
State of U.P.(Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2021, AIR 2018 SC
4647 titled as Achpal alias Ramswaroop and anr. Vs. State
of Rajasthan dated 24.09.2018, (2017) 15 SCC 67 titled as
Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam dated 16.08.2017
and (2012) 1 SCC 40 titled as Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation dated 23.11.2011.
Heard both sides.
This Court has expressed its doubt with regard to the filing
and maintainability of one bail cancellation petition against the
prayer to cancel two different bail applications. On this point, no
judgment and no argument were advanced. However, learned
Asst. S.G., Mr. B. Majumder, appearing for the petitioner
contended that since the order has been passed in both the bail
application relating to the same crime, the said application
according to him is maintainable. So, a single criminal petition
has been filed seeking the cancellation of both bail application.
Heard both sides.
Judgment reserved.
JUDGE
suhanjit
