Sri Dipta Sundar Debnath vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 200 Tri

                              Page 1 of 8

                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA
                         AB No.12 of 2022

Sri Dipta Sundar Debnath
Son of Sri Haradhan Sundar Debnath, of Joynagar, Jirania,
P.S - Jirania, West Tripura ( permanent address). Present
address- Banamalipur Jora pukurpar- 31 P.S- East Agartala
West Tripura.

                                              ............... Petitioner(s).

                                  Vs.

THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Represented by Ld. PP High Court Tripura.
                                             ............... Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) :      Mr. Bhaskar Deb, Advocate.
                         Mr. S. Rahman, Advocate.
For Respondent(s):       Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.

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

                              ORDER

18/02/2022

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Deb, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner along with Mr. S. Rahaman, learned advocate.

Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the

State.

[2] The petitioner has approached this Court for his

release on pre-arrest bail in East Agartala P. S. Case No. 2021

EAG 179 under Sections 325, 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

[3] Factual context of the case is as under:

Sri Rahul Roy, son of late Bishu Roy of Math

Chowmuhani in his FIR dated 29.12.2021 has alleged that at

about 1.10 'O' clock in the intervening night between 25.12.2021

and 26.12.2021 petitioner Dipta Nath along with his associates

came in a white coloured Verna car followed by a scooty and

attacked him at Math Chowmuhani. The accused petitioner and his

associates were armed with lathi and other deadly weapons who

intended to kill the informant. They brutally assaulted him at Math

Chowmuhani and left him near the Iskcon Mandir at Math

Cohowmuhani. As a result of such assault, the informant

sustained grievous hurt in his head and other parts of his body.

He explained the delay in lodging the FIR by saying that due to

the injury suffered by him and time taken for treatment, he could

not lodge the FIR in time.

[4] Based on such FIR, East Agartala P.S Case No.2021

EAG 179 under Sections 325,307,506 read with Section 34 IPC

was registered and investigation of the case was taken up by

police.

[5] Appearing for the petitioner Mr. B. Deb, learned

counsel contends that the allegations brought by the first

informant against the petitioner is entirely false and therefore,

there is no reason to arrest and detain the petitioner in custody

during the investigation of the case. Counsel submits that the

informant is a highly influential person who is trying to get the

petitioner arrested and detained in custody. It is also contended

by Mr. Deb, learned counsel that since the petitioner belongs to a

different political party, an FIR based on false allegations has been

registered against him and he is likely to be arrested unless

protected by the Court by an order of pre-arrest bail. Further

contention of learned counsel of the petitioner is that there is no

ingredient of Section 307 IPC in the case and the other charges

brought against him are all bailable. Counsel also submits that

petitioner is a patient of high blood sugar and other related

ailments and moreover his parents are ailing and bed ridden.

According to learned counsel, other than the petitioner there is no

other person in his house to take care of his parents and family

members including his wife and daughter. Counsel urges the court

to take into consideration all these grounds and allow the

petitioner pre-arrest bail in this case.

[6] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor has

produced the case diary. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that

during investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the

statements of eye witnesses who have given a vivid description of

the occurrence. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that

as per the eye witness version, the petitioner and his associates

initially started beating the driver of a truck after their vehicle

collided with that truck at Math Chowmuhani. When they were

assaulting the driver of the truck, the first informant appeared

there as a good Samaritan to save the innocent truck driver from

their attack. The petitioner and his associates then hounded the

informant and assaulted him mercilessly. As a result of which he

suffered serious damage in one of his eyes. It is also submitted by

learned P.P that probably he has been taken for treatment outside

the State. Counsel submits that the investigation of the case is at

the initial stage and if the accused petitioner is released on pre-

arrest bail at this stage, a free and fair investigation will be

difficult. It is contended by learned P.P that effective interrogation

of a suspect of crime during investigation is of tremendous

advantage and release of the suspect on pre-arrest bail deters the

investigating agency from carrying out an effective interrogation

because the accused feels that he is protected and insulated by a

pre-arrest bail.

[7] To buttress his contention, learned P.P has relied on

the decision of the Apex Court in State Rep. by the C.B.I Vrs.

Anil Sharma; reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187 wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-6 of the judgment has held as

under:

"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial

interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

[8] Learned Public Prosecutor also contends that the

Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that

curtailment of freedom of an accused during investigation may be

necessary in order to enable the investigation to proceed without

hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with

the victim of the crime. In support of his contention, learned

Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in

Adri Dharan Das Vrs. State of W. B; reported in (2005) 4 SCC

303 wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-19 of the judgment has

viewed as under:

"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the Court in

the process of investigation is limited. The Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."

[9] Under the premises aforesaid, learned Public

Prosecutor contends that in view of the incriminating materials

collected by the Investigating Agency and the law laid down by

the Apex Court in the judgments relied on by him, petitioner does

not deserve pre-arrest bail in this case.

[10] Replying to the contention of learned Public

Prosecutor, Mr. Deb, learned defence counsel contends that

learned Public Prosecutor has introduced new facts which are not

available in the FIR lodged by the victim. Counsel submits that

had these facts been true, the informant must have stated those

facts in the FIR lodged by him.

[11] Perused the case diary and considered the

submissions made at the Bar. It appears from the order dated

17.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

West Tripura (Court No.5) in BA No.13 of 2022 [annexed by the

petitioner to his bail application] that the video C.D of the

occurrence collected by the Investigating Agency was placed

before the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to

have watched the said video C.D and observed as under:

"*****Prima facie, at this stage, I find, this is a case under section 307/506/325/34 of IPC. From the video CD it appears to me that accused petitioner and others brutally assaulted informant by fist and blows and helmet. The manner of incident as shown in the video CD, at this stage, appears to me that it cannot be said that there was no intention to kill the informant by petitioners and others. From the Video CD other miscreants are not clearly identifiable and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary.****"

[12] A detailed exposition of the statements of the

witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency may prejudice the

defence in the trial. Therefore, such eleboration not be

appropriate at this stage. However, from the statements of the

witnesses recoded by the Investigating Officer it appears that the

petitioner was not alone at the time of occurrence. He was in a

group when he was returning from somewhere in his vehicle.

Some of his associates were also following him on a scooty.

Though it was 1.10 'O' clock in the night, there were people on

the street since it was the Christmas night. The informant who

was alone at the place when he was severely beaten by the

petitioner and his associates. The facts which have been made

available before the court demonstrate that the informant who

was a local resident came there to dissuade the parties from

fighting, after they started fighting with each other following the

collusion between their vehicle. At that time, the accused

petitioner and his associates attacked him and caused fatal

injuries to him. It is true that no injury report has been produced

by the prosecution. But the investigating agency has produced

some clinical documents which indicate that the injured was

subjected to various diagnostic tests including CT scan

immediately after the occurrence.

[13] Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of

the case and the materials placed on record as well as the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited to supra, this

Court is of the view that a good prima facie case has been made

out against the petitioner and a free and fair investigation of the

case would be necessary. Release of the accused on pre-arrest

bail is very likely to obstruct the course of such investigation.

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to extend the extraordinary

relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in the present case. His

petition, therefore, stands rejected.

[14] In terms of the above, bail petition stands disposed of.

Return the Case diary.

JUDGE

Dipankar