Tripura High Court
Purushottam Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Tripura on 25 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A.No.22 of 2025
Purushottam Kumar Mahto,
son of Late Saryuig Mahto
of Chitrasenpur, P.S. & P.O. Sonpur,
District-Saran, Bihar, India
---- Petitioner on behalf of the accused in Custody
Sri Suraj Kumar,
Son of Bacchu Mahto
Of Nandni, Ward No.08,
Sivai Singhpur, Samastipur,
P.S. & P.O. Mahiuddin Nagar,
Pin-848502, District-Samastipur,
Bihar, India
---- Accused person in Custody
Versus
The State of Tripura
[---
----Respondent(s)
______________________________________________________
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K.D. Singha, Adv.
Ms. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
_________________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
25/04/2025
Learned Senior counsel, Mr. S. Sarkar assisted by Mr. K.D. Singha
and Ms. P. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the accused in custody. Learned
P.P., Mr. R. Datta is present on behalf of the State-respondent. We have
received the record from the Learned Court below. Learned P.P. also has
produced the case diary.
[2] Taking part in the hearing, Mr. S. Sarkar, Learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the accused in custody drawn the attention of the Court
that in this case rigor of Section 37 would not apply as because the seized
alamats were of intermediate quantity i.e. more than small quantity but less
than commercial quantity and as such, the accused deserves to be released on
bail in any condition. He further submitted that in this case charge-sheet is
submitted within time and the accused in languishing in jail since last
21.01.2025 and further submitted that there is no other previous record of
committing any offence of similar nature by the accused in custody. So, he
urged for releasing the accused on bail in any condition and referred two
citations in support of his contention of Hon'ble High Court of Kerela and also
the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Referring the said citations he further
submitted that in the both the aforesaid citations it was the observation of the
Hon'ble High Court that 'bail is the rule and the jail is the exception' ensuring
fair trial rights under Article 21.
[3] On the other hand, Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta appearing on behalf
of the State-respondent submitted that admittedly in this case the contraband
items is of intermediate quantity but in this case, charge-sheet was submitted
within time and as such, the accused is not entitled to get the benefit of
default bail. Furthermore, since the accused is the inhabitant of Bihar, so, at
this stage, if he is released on bail than the entire trial would be vitiated as he
may abscond rather Learned P.P. submitted before the Court to give a
direction to the Learned Special Judge to complete the process of trial within a
short span of time for the sake of justice.
Considered.
[4] In this case, the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of
an FIR laid by one SI(GD)N.C. Karmakar for and on behalf of 108 Bn. BSF to
O/c R.K.Pur PS, Maharanichera, Udaipur alleging inter alia that the accused is
in custody on and from 21.01.2025. On 20.01.2025 an Anti-Human Trafficking
Unit (AHTU) of 108 Bn BSF consisting of the informant and some other staff
were detailed for monitoring/curbing illegal movement of migrants, Rohingyas
and Bangladeshi Nationals at Railway Station Udaipur w.e.f. 0730 hrs. vide 108
Bn. BSF GD reference No.290 dated 20.01.2025. At about 1900 hrs. on arrival
of Kanchanganja Express (Train No.13173) from Agartala, Const(GD) Abhay
Singh observed the suspicious movement of a person carrying a black coloured
Skybags. After de-boarding he was moving on platform No.1 towards Agartala
side inspite of exit gate and seems to be trying to escape. Thereafter, the
informant and Constable Abhay Singh stopped and enquired from that person
about his belongings. He replied without hesitating that he is carrying
'Hemp'(Ganja) in his bag. Being asked he further stated that it is
approximately 8 kg in weight. On further inquiry he told that he travelled from
Patna to kishanganj in local passenger train and onwards to Udaipur in
Kanchanganja Express. Meanwhile, he had taken over the consignment of
'Hemp' (Ganja) from Agartala Railway Station from a person named Bishnu
and for that, his father make part payment of Rs.20,000/- through phone pay
to the concerned person. He detained the suspected person. Finally, 8 kg.
Ganja in four packets of 2 kg each, one Bag(Black colour) were seized and
accordingly, the informant laid the FIR. On receipt of FIR R.K.Pur P.S. Case
No.12/2025 under Section 20 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 29 of
NDPS Act was registered. He was produced before the Court under arrest on
21.01.2025 and since then he is lodging in custody. By this time, Learned
Special Judge vide order dated 03.04.2025 has framed charge against the
accused punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and the case is
posted for examination of PWS w.e.f.22.04.2025 to 25.04.2025.
[5] I have heard both the sides at length and perused the record of
the Learned Court below including the Case Diary. I have also perused the
citations referred by Learned Senior counsel. In Prabhas Mandal versus
State of Kerela the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela in 2025
Supreme(Online)(KER)4380 in para Nos.6 to 10 observed as under :
"6. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly,
the contraband seized from the petitioner is
intermediate quantity. The offence alleged is
under Section 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act. In such
circumstances, the rigor under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act is not applicable. No criminal
antecedents are alleged against the petitioner.
Petitioner is in custody from 15.11.2024 onwards.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail
after imposing stringent conditions. But I make it
clear that, if the petitioner is involved in similar
offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free
to file appropriate application before the
Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail, and if
such an application is filed, the Jurisdictional
Court is free to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, even though this order is
passed by this Court.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that
the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v
Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE
870], after considering all the earlier judgments,
observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to
bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of
bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as
to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of
securing fair trial.
8. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India
[2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment,
we must mention here that the Special
Court and the High Court did not consider
the material in the charge sheet
objectively. Perhaps the focus was more
on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the
appellant's case could not be properly
appreciated. When a case is made out for
a grant of bail, the Courts should not have
any hesitation in granting bail. The
allegations of the prosecution may be very
serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to
consider the case for grant of bail in
accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule
and jail is an exception" is a settled law.
Even in a case like the present case where
there are stringent conditions for the
grant of bail in the
relevant statutes, the same rule holds
good with only modification that the bail
can be granted if the conditions in the
statute are satisfied. The rule also means
that once a case is made out for the grant
of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant
bail. If the Courts start denying bail in
deserving cases, it will be a violation of
the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our
Constitution." (underline supplied)
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that:
"53. The Court further observed that, over
a period of time, the trial courts and the
High Courts have forgotten a very well -
settled principle of law that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. From our
experience, we can say that it appears
that the trial courts and the High Courts
attempt to play safe in matters of grant of
bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times,
followed in breach. On account of non -
grant of bail even in straight forward open
and shut cases, this Court is flooded with
huge number of bail petitions thereby
adding to the huge pendency. It is high
time that the trial courts and the High
Courts should recognize the principle that
"bail is rule and jail is exception"."
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as
and when required. The petitioner shall
cooperate with the investigation and shall
not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which he is suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though the bail is
granted by this Court. The prosecution
and the victim are at liberty to approach
the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail,
if there is any violation of the above
conditions."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a bail application
No.4125 of 2023 namely Dinesh Bhausaheb Patole versus State of
Maharashtra in para No.3(operative portion) further observed as under :
"(a) The application is allowed.
(b) The applicant-Dinesh Bhausaheb Patole in
connection with C.R. No.493 of 2023 registered
with Ambad police station shall be released on
bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/-
with one or more sureties in the like amount.
(c) The applicant shall attend the investigating
officer of Ambad police station once in a month on
first Monday of every month between 11.00 a.m.
and 1.00 p.m.
(d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court
or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not
tamper with evidence.
(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential
address to the investigating officer and shall keep
him updated, in case there is any change.
(f) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.
The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court
and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(g) The applicant shall surrender his passport to
the investigating officer. If the applicant does not
have passport, he shall file the affidavit to that
effect.
(h) The applicant shall not leave the country
without permission of the trial Court."
From the aforesaid citations it appears that in both the cases bail
was granted to the accused in course of investigation. But here in the case at
hand the IO on completion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the
jurisdictional Special Judge within time and accordingly cognizance of offence
was taken. Before the Learned Special Judge successive bail applications were
filed by the accused but Learned Special Judge rejected the bail applications on
the ground of contraband items are of intermediate quantity.
[6] Admittedly, in this case, rigor of provision of Section 37 would not
attract. There is no record from the side of the prosecution that the present
accused was/is involved in similar nature of any other offence in any other
Court or in any other P.S.
[7] So, considering the period of detention in custody and relying
upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela and
the High Court of Maharashtra I am inclined to consider the bail application of
the accused Suraj Kumar of his execution of bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh)
with one surety of like amount who must be a public servant with condition
that he shall attend the Court of Special Judge once in a week till conclusion of
trial and he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Learned Special Judge
without prior permission of the Court id to remain in JC as before. However, it
is made clear that if it is found that the present accused in custody is involved
in similar other offence, the IO shall be at liberty to file appropriate application
before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of his bail inspite of granting bail
by this Court today.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of this order.
Return back the CD to IO through Learned P.P. along with a copy
of this order.
Also a copy of this order be supplied to Learned senior counsel,
Mr. S. Sarkar for the accused in custody.
With this observation, the bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SABYASACHI Digitally
SABYASACHI
signed by
BHATTACHAR BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.04.26
JEE 07:46:58 +05'30'
Sabyasachi B
