Sri Ranjan Saha vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 1049 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Ranjan Saha vs The State Of Tripura on 30 April, 2025

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                        A. B. No.33 of 2025

Sri Ranjan Saha
S/O- Gopal Chandra Saha,
Residing at Jogendranagar,
Near Gramin Bank, Water Supply,
P.O.- Jogendranagar, P.S.- East Agartala,
District- West Tripura, PIN-799004,
Aged About- 54 Years Approx.
                                                            .... Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
The State of Tripura
                                                      .......Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Order 30/04/2025

This bail application under Section 482 of BNSS is filed for

granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant Ranjan Saha in connection

with West Agartala PS Case No.17/2025 under Section

318(4)/316(5) of BNS, 2023.

Heard Learned Counsel Mr. A. Bhowmik appearing on

behalf of the applicant and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. R. Datta

appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the

applicant first of all drawn the attention of the Court that vide

Annexure-3 dated 19.02.2025, the applicant being a LDC attached to

Labour Directorate was given a show cause notice. After that on

21.02.2025 without any hearing the department issued one memo

giving warning to him not to repeat such type of activities in future

and the matter was closed. But thereafter vide Annexure-5 i.e. an

office order wherein it was mentioned that a departmental

proceeding was contemplating against the applicant working under

Labour Directorate. But surprisingly, on 19.02.2025 an FIR was laid

against him.

Learned Counsel further submitted that simultaneously

both the criminal case and the departmental proceeding cannot

continue at the same time.

Learned Counsel also submitted that based upon the FIR,

he submitted one pre-arrest bail application to the Court of Learned

Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala which was numbered as Bail

Application No.58 of 2025 and by the order dated 09.04.2025 the

said petition was rejected/dismissed by the Learned Sessions Judge,

West Tripura, Agartala and accordingly he has filed this pre-arrest

bail application before this Court.

It was further submitted that by this time the applicant

has been placed under suspension and he has been posted at

Gandatwisa Sub-Division showing his head quarter therein and since

he is a Government servant and there is no chance of his absconsion

and the amount involved in the FIR is a very minimum amount which

also may be recovered from him by the department. So, considering

all the circumstances, Learned Counsel submitted that protection

may be granted to him by considering his bail application.

Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik in course of hearing

relied upon one citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

reported in (2005) 11 SCC 119 [C.R. Patil v. State of Gujarat &

Ors.] wherein in para No.7, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as

under:-

"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to grant prayer of the petitioners. As stated in the petition itself, the order passed by the High Court is subject-matter of challenge and special leave petitions are pending before this Court. It has also come on record that earlier prayer for temporary

bail was granted by this Court pursuant to which the petitioners were enlarged on bail, no doubt for a temporary period. It is not even the allegation of the respondents that the petitioners have violated terms and/or conditions of the said order passed by this Court. When the petitioners have shown their willingness to pay the amount and the special leave petitions are pending, this Court will consider all aspects when the matters will be taken up for hearing. But in view of the fact that an order passed by this Court temporarily releasing them on bail is over and special leave petitions await hearing and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners intend to enter into meaningful negotiations with the respondents and to do all the necessary acts for payment of loan amount, it would be in the interest of justice to enlarge them on bail so as to enable them to make arrangements for such payment."

Learned Counsel also referred another citation of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2023 7 SCC 461

[Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi] wherein in para

No.26 of Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as under:-

"26. We may, however, not be understood to have laid down the law that in no case should willingness to make payment/deposit by the accused be considered before grant of an order for bail. In exceptional cases such as where an allegation of misappropriation of public money by the accused is levelled and the accused while seeking indulgence of the court to have his liberty secured/restored volunteers to account for the whole or any part of the public money allegedly misappropriated by him, it would be open to the court concerned to consider whether in the larger public interest the money misappropriated should be allowed to be deposited before the application for anticipatory bail/bail is taken up for final consideration. After all, no court should be averse to putting public money back in the system if the situation is conducive therefor. We are minded to think that this approach would be in the larger interest of the community. However, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating."

Referring the same Learned Counsel drawn the attention

of the Court in the said citation, a direction was given to consider

deposit the money misappropriated before the anticipatory bail

application is taken up for final consideration.

Learned Counsel also submitted that here in the case at

hand considering the nature of allegation and the amount involved a

scope may be given to the applicant to deposit the amount to his

department.

On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of

the State-respondent produced the CD and submitted that the

accused by misusing his power has misappropriated the public

money so at this stage there is no scope to grant him any bail.

Learned P.P. also relied upon one citation of the Hon'ble

Bombay High Court reported in 2025 SCC online Bom 597

[Sheetal Swapnil Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra]

wherein para No.11, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed as

under:

11. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of the Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2013) 7 SCC 466, in paragraph nos. 24 to 26 which reads as under:--

"24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

26. Taking note of all these aspects, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also with regard to the claim of CBI and the defence, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be released at this stage, however, we direct CBI to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet(s) as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from today. Thereafter, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court and if any such petition is filed, the trial court is free to consider the

prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal."

(Emphasis supplied)

Learned P.P. referring the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in Ramesh Kumar (supra) as relied upon

by the Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that by the said

judgment bail was not granted.

So, at this stage there is no scope on the part of this

Court to consider the pre-arrest bail application filed by the

applicant.

Considered.

I have seen the FIR. It appears that one Labour Inspector

Anirban Bhowmik on 19.02.2025 laid the FIR against the application

with the allegation that Sri Biswajit Paul, Additional Labour

Commissioner and one Sri Paramita Majumder, Deputy Labour

Commissioner conducted an inquiry and submitted a preliminary

report vide dated 19.02.2025 and from the preliminary report it is

revealed that Sri Ranjan Saha, LD Clerk misappropriated and

embezzled Rs.1,28,378/- only under ASSP Scheme (a welfare

scheme for unorganized workers) by means of forgery of the

sanction memo issued by Labour Commissioner, Government of

Tripura and inclusion of names of 5 (five) persons, namely, Pritam

Saha, Rakhi Saha, Prashanta Saha, Shibajyoti Saha and Raiharan

Saha. According to FIR, all the unauthorized persons are his near

relatives. On the basis of that, this present case has been registered.

I have already perused the CD.

There is a direct allegation regarding transfer of fund of

ASSP Scheme to the aforesaid unauthorized persons by the

applicant. Admittedly, the applicant is a government servant.

I have also gone through the relevant provision of Section

482 of BNSS (earlier Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) which provides as

under:-

"482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

(1)When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

(2)When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;(ii) a condition that the person 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 such facts to the Court or to any police officer;(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.

(3)If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be issued in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).

(4)Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under section 65 and sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023."

From the documents annexed with the application it

appears that by this time the department has contemplated initiation

of departmental proceeding against him. I have also perused

Annexure-3 i.e. Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2025, Annexure-4

i.e. Memorandum dated 21.02.2025 by Addl. Labour Commissioner

and the Order memo dated 20.02.2025 at Annexure-5.

At the same time, I have also perused the citation of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2023 7 SCC 461

[Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi].

Admittedly, in this case there is allegation of

misappropriation of public money by the applicant amounting to

Rs.1,28,378/-. The case is under investigation.

Since Learned Counsel for the applicant at the time of

hearing fairly submitted that the applicant is ready to deposit the

alleged misappropriated amount. So, in view of the observation of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2023 7 SCC

461 [Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi] it is ordered that

the applicant shall deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,28,378 to

the Directorate where he was posted earlier on or before 21.05.2025

and shall submit one acknowledgement to this court through his

engaged Learned Counsel showing deposit of money.

Thereafter, the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the

applicant will be taken up for consideration.

The CD be returned back to I.O. through Learned P.P. in

course of the day along with a copy of this order which has the

direction to produce the same on the next date.

A copy of this order be furnished to Learned Counsel, Mr.

A. Bhowmik representing the applicant in course of the day for

information and necessary action.

Also a copy of this order be furnished to Learned P.P. in

course of the day for onward transmission of the same to the office

of Labour Commissioner through I.O.

Till then, no coercive action be taken by I.O. against the

applicant.

                                                                                     JUDGE


AMRITA DEB                Date: 2025.04.30 17:50:36



Amrita