Tripura High Court

Smti. Putul Deb vs The State Of Tripura on 12 January, 2022

                             Page 1 of 9

                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                         AB No.80 of 2021

Smti. Putul Deb, wife of     Sri Asish Das, resident of Kalibarir
Paschimpara,    Bikramnagar,     Sekerkote,      P.S-Amtali, P.O-
Sekerkote,Pin-799130, District-West Tripura, Tripura.
                                             ............... Petitioner(s).
                                 Vs.
The State of Tripura.
                                            ............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) :     Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s):      Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor,
                        Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

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

                             ORDER

12/01/2022

Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner who urges the Court for confirmation of pre-arrest bail

which has been granted to the petitioner namely, Smt. Putul Deb

under Section 438 Cr. P.C for an interim period. Also heard Mr. S.

Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who appears for the

State-respondent.

[2] Initially the bail application of the petitioner for her

release on pre-arrest bail was rejected by this court by an order

dated 8.10.2021 in AB No. 76 of 2021 while her accused husband

Ashish Das was granted pre-arrest bail. Subsequently, she

approached this Court by filing a fresh application under Section

438 Cr. P.C on medical ground which was allowed by this Court by

order dated 17.11.2021 which reads as under:

"17.11.2021

[1] This is an application for granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by the accused applicant namely Putul Rani Deb who is apprehending arrest in East Agartala Women Police Station Case No.2021 WEA 048 registered for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Similar application filed on behalf of the petitioner was considered by this court on 08.10.2021 in AB No.76 of 2021 and after considering the matter on merit, the petition was rejected by this Court.

[2] The facts of the case may be reproduced from the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by this court in AB No.76 of 2021 which reads as under:

"2. ......................... Smt. Bijoy Laxmi Debbarma, woman Assistant Sub Inspector of police lodged a suo-motu complaint with the Officerin-Charge of her police station on 04.09.2021 alleging, inter alia, that the present petitioners who are husband and wife along with accused Smt. Panna Deb and Biswajit Deb treated Ms. Rajashree Deb with cruelty which caused severe mental distress to her and to get rid of such mental distress Ms. Rajashree Deb committed suicide. A suicidal note was recovered from the pocket of her trouser which she was wearing at the time of committing suicide and in her suicidal note the deceased held Smt. Panna Deb, Smt. Putul Deb, Sri Biswajit Deb and Ashish Das responsible for death. The complainant police officer also alleged in her suo-motu FIR that the said accused persons used to harass the deceased for not getting married which caused her depression and led her to finish her life by committing suicide. Said complaint was registered as East Agartala Women P.S Case No. 2021 WEA 048 and investigation of the case was taken up by police."

[3] Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP representing the State respondent.

[4] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has annexed a clinical document as Annexure-9 to the petition which is dated 23.10.2021. The said document has been issued from the Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Science, Kolkata which demonstrates that petitioner has been diagnosed with calculus in her Gall Bladder and she has been advised to take admission in the hospital on 19.11.2021 and undergo surgery on the following day i.e. on 20.11.2021. It is submitted by Mr. Lodh, learned

Advocate that the petitioner has been suffering from acute abdominal pain and therefore, urgent surgical intervention is required. Counsel also contends that petitioner does not have any remote link with the suicide of Rajasree Deb because she used to live at a faraway place from the house of the deceased. Counsel argues that, the charge of abetment against her to the commission of suicide is absolutely unacceptable. Counsel therefore, urges the Court for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioner.

[5] Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP on the other hand has produced the CD and opposed the bail application on the ground that this court after consideration of the matter on merit rejected the bail application of the petitioner relying on the suicidal note of the deceased and the statements of her mother and brother. Counsel submits that there is no change in the situation except the medical ground of the petitioner and in view of the role played by the petitioner in the commission of suicide by Ms.Rajasree Deb, her bail application cannot be entertained. Counsel therefore, urges the Court for rejecting her bail application.

[6] Her application for pre arrest bail in AB No.76 of 2021 was rejected by this Court by the following order:

"[4] Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned advocate appearing for the applicants along with Mr. Kishalay Roy, advocate. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent.

[5] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel of the petitioners has taken me to the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Agartala in Bail Application No.181 of 2021 whereby bail was granted to Smt. Panna Deb under Section 439 Cr. P.C after 25 days of her detention in custody. Counsel submits that other than Smt. Panna Deb another accused namely, Biswajit Deb has also been released on pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala by his order dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure-2 to the application) in Bail Application No.178 of 2021. Counsel submits that the present applicants namely, Sri Ashish Das and Smt. Putul Deb are also entitled to bail on the ground of parity as the other two accused

of this case who were booked under same charges have been granted bail. In support of his contention Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has relied on an order dated 11.07.2005 of the Apex Court in Kamaljit Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another; reported in (2005) 7 SCC 226 wherein the Court granted anticipatory bail applying the principle of parity observing as under:

"Heard the counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is an appropriate case in which the application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail ought to have been allowed, particularly when on similar allegations the remaining two accused have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. In these circumstances the appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the Court, as the case may be, subject to the condition laid down in Section 438 Cr. P.C."

[6] Counsel submits that even though the applicants are close relatives of the deceased, they never lived together with her. They used to visit her occasionally. They were very affectionate to the deceased and in no manner they could be connected with the commission of her suicide. Rather, they always helped to come out of her depression.

[7] Relying on the medical prescriptions of a consultant psychiatrist and several prescriptions issued from Tripura Medical College and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital counsel submits that the deceased was a patient of chronic depression and mental illness. Counsel refers to the case history of the deceased appearing in the clinical documents issued from Tripura Medical College and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital where it has been recorded that she was of irrational conduct and abnormal behaviour and she was aggressive to her mother and non-cooperative to her friends and hospital staff. Counsel submits that the medical

documents go to show that she had been suffering from such mental illness from before 2009. It is contended by the counsel of the petitioners that her chronic mental depression led her to commit suicide for which no one including the petitioners can be held responsible. It is also contended by Mr. Lodh, learned advocate that applicants, Ashish Das is a decorator by occupation and his wife Smt. Putul Deb is a government employee. If accused Ashish Das is arrested and detained in custody, his business during the festive season will be spoilt and in the event of arrest of his wife Smt. Putul Deb, her service career will be jeopardized. Counsel also submits that they have a minor daughter at home and in the event of their arrest there will be none at home to look after the minor daughter. Counsel submits that abatement has a wider meaning which involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding such person for doing a thing for which evidence is necessary to show that a very active role was played by the applicants in instigating or aiding the deceased to commit suicide. Counsel submits that there is no such evidence against the applicants that they had played such role leading to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Counsel therefore, urges the court for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicants.

[8] Heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. Mr. Debnath refers to the suicidal note of the deceased contained in the case diary and submits that in her suicidal note, the deceased has held the applicants responsible for her suicide. Counsel submits that in her suicidal note, she has clearly stated that applicants made her life miserable by abusing her, as a result of which she finished her life. It is also contended by Mr. Debnath that she has clearly stated in her suicidal note that present applicant Smt. Putul Deb and bailed out accused Smt. Panna Deb used to treat her as a maid servant for which she finished her life. Counsel therefore, submits that Smt. Putul Deb, one of the applicants herein is not entitled to the extra ordinary

relief of pre-arrest bail. Counsel further submits that Smt. Panna Deb was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 439 Cr. P.C in view of her prolonged detention in custody. The other accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge mainly on the ground of his critical illness who preferred bail application after he was admitted in a hospital at Kolkata for surgery. Counsel therefore, submits that the principle of parity will not apply in the case of the present applicants. Counsel urges the Court to take into consideration the seriousness of the offence and involvement of the applicants in the said offence and reject their bail applications.

[9] Considered the submissions of the counsel of the parties. Perused the case diary particularly, the statements of the mother and brother of the deceased. There is nothing on record that the deceased ever attempted commission of suicide even though she was undergoing mental depression and receiving treatment from psychiatrist. In the alleged suicidal note she has clearly stated that Smt. Panna Deb and Smt. Putul Deb used to treat her as a maid servant and made her life miserable. The investigating agency is verifying the authenticity of the suicidal note. Examination of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case is also in progress. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied on by the counsel of the petitioners, the principle of parity as pointed out by learned counsel would apply only when the similarly situated accused booked under similar charges are granted bail. In the present case, the suicidal note of the deceased as well as the statement of the witnesses particularly those of the mother and brother of the deceased have made out a strong prima facie case against applicant Smt. Putul Deb. Though the charge is same against her, incriminating materials collected during investigation are heavier against her. The materials demonstrate that the deceased was her brother's daughter. Since the family of the deceased had no income, they were dependent of the

applicant who is an earning woman and, as such, the applicant Smt. Putul Deb had control over the whole family of the deceased. In this situation, the role of applicant Smt. Putul Deb in the commission of suicide of the deceased has to be verified by a full and fair investigation of the case. I am convinced that her release on pre-arrest bail is likely to affect a full and fair investigation because witnesses are her relatives and vulnerable to her influence. The suicidal note and statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation cannot be ignored simply for the reason that the victim was a patient of mental depression. This is a case in which a young and helpless woman committed suicide under miserable circumstances. Therefore, a thorough investigation in the case is necessary.

[10] Considering all these aspects, bail application of Smt. Putul Deb is rejected. In view of the materials available on record, pre-arrest bail is granted to Ashish Das. In the event of his arrest or surrender Sri Ashish Das shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the Court, as the case may be, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He will not meet any member of the family of the deceased or try to influence any of the witnesses of this case in any manner directly or indirectly.

(ii) He will meet the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

(iii) He will not leave the State without prior approval of the Investigating Officer during investigation of this case.

[11] In terms of the above, the bail application is partly allowed and disposed of. Return the Case diary."

[7] Perused the entire record. Considered the submissions made at the bar.

[8] The medical certificate produced on behalf of the petitioner would demonstrate that she has been diagnosed with Gall Bladder stone and date of her

operation has been fixed on 20.11.2021. Therefore, considering the medical grounds it would be appropriate to provide custodial immunity to her for a period of at least 3 weeks from today so as to enable her to undergo surgery as advised by her doctors.

[9] Therefore, in the event of her arrest, the petitioner may be released on bail on her furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with 01 surety of the like amount till 03.12.2021.

List the matter on 03.12.2021.

Inform the IO accordingly.

Return the CD."

[3] At the expiry of the period of her interim bail,

petitioner moved this Court for confirmation of her bail by filing a

petition on 03.12.2021 and by an order dated 03.12.2021 the

period of petitioner's interim bail was extended till 07.01.2022.

[4] Today, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contends that the petitioner has meticulously complied

with the conditions of her bail. Counsel therefore, submits for

confirmation of her bail on any condition whatsoever.

[5] Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor