Tripura High Court
Prasanta Rout On Behalf Of Accused Sri ... vs The State Of Tripura ----Respondent(S) on 15 July, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A. 37/2024
Prasanta Rout on behalf of accused Sri Jayanta Rout ----Applicant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura ----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jahidul Islam, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
15/07/2024
Heard Mr. Jahidul Islam, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard
Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondent-State.
This is an application for granting bail to the accused, Jayanta Rout, who
was arrested on 16.05.2023 in connection with Amtali PS case No. 71 of
2023 registered under Sections 376/120(B)/376D/328/366/342/225 of IPC
corresponding to ST(T-1) 26 of 2023 and has been in custody for the last
456 days.
In the instant case, charge-sheet has been submitted on 07.07.2023 and
learned counsel for the applicant has annexed copy of the charge-sheet
alongwith the application for bail.
The main grounds agitated by learned counsel for the applicant in support
of granting bail to the accused are that, firstly, the accused has been in
custody for the last 456 days and there is no chance of commencement of
trial within few months, as such, the accused may get the benefit of bail.
Learned PP has submitted the case diary. Secondly, there is no direct
evidence against the accused. Thirdly, the accused was temporary driver of
the vehicle in which the victim as well as other accused persons were
present. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance upon 4 judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
viz. (i) Vivek Kumar vs. State of UP reported in (2000) 9 SCC 443; (ii) State
of Kerala vs. Raneef reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784, para 15; (iii) Angela
Harish Sontakke vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021)3 SCC 723,
para 3 and 4; (iv) Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe and another vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2021)3 SCC 725.
In rebuttal, Mr. Datta, learned PP has submitted that the accused has been
involved in serious crime and the victim has been subjected to gang rape.
Learned PP has further submitted that there is direct evidence against the
accused. The accused has been identified during T.I. parade by the victim.
I have perused the case diary as well as the charge-sheet.
It is found that the victim girl during T.I. parade identified the accused as
one of the persons who raped her. From her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., it also comes to light that the victim girl has
categorically stated that the accused had raped her. In her statement recorded
under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., the victim girl has clearly stated that she could
not say how many times the accused persons had raped her. She has started
that the accused had mixed some pills with water which compelled her to
sleep.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel appearing for the
parties as well as the statement of the victim girl as revealed in the charge
sheet and the case diary. I have also taken note of the judgments cited by
learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
In the case of Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had found the accused person in custody close to four years. In the
case of Angela Harish Sontakke (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
considered that the accused had been in custody for over five years and the
trial has not commenced yet. In the case of Vivek Kumar (supra) and
Raneef (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the allegations
leveled against the accused persons do not fulfill the requirements of UAPA
Act.
Having regards to the submissions and citations placed before this court,
I am of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case to grant bail to the
accused.
It is true that this is not the stage of imposing any punishment upon the
accused person. Punishment is imposed after completion of trial considering
the merits of the case. In the instant case, the principal accused has not been
arrested as yet. Prima facie, I find that there are substantial allegations
against the accused and his release may affect conduct of fair trial.
I find merit in the submission of learned PP that if the accused is released
on bail he will try to influence the victim girl and even may threaten her and
her family members to withdraw the case. Though it is not the stage of
imposing punishment upon the accused person yet on consideration of the
consequence of releasing the accused on bail, as I narrated here-in-above,
the bail application filed by the applicant stands rejected. However, it is
made clear that the trial court may complete the trial within a period of 4
(four) months from today since 63 witnesses are to adduce their evidence.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court.
Return back the case diary.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR Date: 2024.07.15 15:15:22
