Smt. Sangita Debbarma On Behalf Of ... vs The State Of Tripura
2024 Latest Caselaw 1765 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smt. Sangita Debbarma On Behalf Of ... vs The State Of Tripura on 12 November, 2024

                                  Page 1 of 2


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                          B.A.No.59 of 2024

Smt. Sangita Debbarma on behalf of accused
Shri Pranesh Debbarma and Anr.
                                                              ----Applicant(s)
                                   Versus


The State of Tripura

                           [---
                                             ----Respondent(s)

_________________________________________________________ For Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P. _________________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Order 12/11/2024

Learned counsel, Mr. S. Lodh is present for the applicant in

custody who at this stage submitted that in pursuance of the direction

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagmohan Bahl and

Another versus State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in

(2014) 16 SCC 501 the matter needs to be heard by the same Judge

who earlier heard the bail application of the same accused persons and

was pleased to reject the same. He referred para-15 of the said

judgment which is as follows :

"15. In the instant case, when the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge had declined to grant the bail application, the next Fourth Additional Sessions Judge should have been well advised to place the matter before the same Judge. However, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring it to the notice of the Judge concerned that such an application was rejected earlier by a different Judge and he was available. In the entire adjudicatory process, the whole system has to be involved. The matter would be different if a Judge has demitted the office or has been transferred. Similarly, in the trial court, the matter would stand on a different footing, if the presiding officer has been superannuated or transferred. The fundamental concept is, if the Judge is available, the matter should be heard by him. That will sustain the faith of the people in the system and nobody would pave the path of forum-shopping, which is decryable in law."

Learned P.P. did not raise any objection.

So, considering all and having perused the same it appears

that earlier the matter was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Lodh and his

Lordship was pleased to dispose of the bail application vide No.48 of

2024 dated 24.09.2024 arising out of Case No.Special (NDPS) 03 of

2024 in connection with Fatikroy P.S. Case No.2023/FTK/015 under

Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act.

In view of the above direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court,

the Registrar(Judicial) be asked to place the matter before his Lordship

for further proceeding.

JUDGE

SABYASACHI Digitally signed by SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJ BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.11.13 EE 12:57:51 +05'30'

Sabyasachi B