Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Sri Santanu Sen @ Rupan on 23 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
BA No.12 of 2025
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary
to the Government of Tripura
Home Department, Agartala
---Applicant
-Vs-
1. Sri Santanu Sen @ Rupan,
Son of Sri Swapan Kumar Sen,
Resident of A.D. Nagar Road No.14,
Rajib Chowmuhani, P.S. Amtali,
District: West Tripura
2. Sri Jayanta Debnath,
Son of Sri Rajani Debnath,
Resident of A.D. Nagar Road No.14,
Chowrangipara, P.S. Amtali,
District: West Tripura
3. Sri Dilip Banik @ Suman,
Son of Late Dhirendra Ch. Banik,
Resident of A.D. Nagar Road No.14,
Rajib Chowmuhani, P.S. Amtali,
District: West Tripura
4. Sri Dipan Banik @ Kenchu,
Son of Late Dhirendra Ch. Banik,
Resident of A.D. Nagar Road No.14,
Rajib Chowmuhani, P.S. Amtali,
District: West Tripura
5. Sri Piklu Sen @ Suman,
Son of Swapan Kumar Sen,
Resident of Rajib Chowmuhani, Charipara,
P.S. Amtali, District: West Tripura
6. Sri Papan Chakraborty,
Son of Sri Pradip Chakraborty,
Resident of Rajib Chowmuhani, P.S. Amtali,
District: West Tripura
---Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kabrabam Dhirendra Singha, Adv.
Mr. Prasanta Sen Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.
Mr. Hare Krishna Bhowmik, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
23/06/2025
This bail application under Section 483(3) read with Section
528 of BNSS is filed for cancelling the order dated 07.01.2025
passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2, West
Tripura, Agartala in connection with ST(T-1)-03 of 2025.
Heard Learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Rajib Saha appearing on behalf
of the applicant-State and also heard Learned Counsel Mr. P. Sen
Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Learned
Counsel Mr. H. K. Bhowmik appearing on behalf of the
respondents No.2, 3 and 4, Learned Counsel Mr. S. Lodh
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Learned Senior
Counsel Mr. S. Sarkar assisted by Mr. K. D. Singha, Learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6.
At the time of hearing Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the
State first of all drawn the attention of the court referring the
contents of the FIR laid by one Badal Saha on 18.09.2024 to O.C.
Amtali PS and submitted that on the basis of that FIR Amtali PS
Case No.118 of 2024 under Section 127(1)/118(2)/109/3(6) of
BNS was registered. He further submitted that in course of
investigation the I.O. produced accused Papan Chakraborty before
the Court on 19.09.2024, the accused Dilip Banik and Dipen Banik
surrendered before the Court of Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate
on 25.09.2024, the accused Jayanta Debnath and Santanu Sen @
Rupan were also produced before the Court on 26.09.2024 and
accused Suman Sen @ Piklu Sen surrendered before the Court of
Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate on 30.09.2024 and after
completion of investigation the I.O. submitted chargesheet within
time and accordingly by order dated 13.12.2024 Learned CJM took
cognizance of offence against the aforesaid respondent-accused
persons under Section 127(1)/118(2)/109/3(6) and 103 of BNS.
Thereafter Learned JM, First Class, Court No.2, West Tripura,
Agartala by order dated 04.01.2025 granted interim bail to all the
accused persons till their production before the Court of Learned
Sessions Judge on 07.01.2025. Thereafter accused Jayanta
Debnath, Papan Chakraborty and Santanu Sen @ Rupan executed
their bail bond and accordingly were released on bail. After that on
commitment Learned Sessions Judge transferred this case to the
Court of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura,
Agartala and by order dated 07.01.2025 Learned Addl. Sessions
Judged granted bail to all the accused persons including those who
were earlier released on interim bail till 07.01.2025. Learned Addl.
P.P. thereafter submitted that in the chargesheet the I.O. prayed
for holding custody trial of all the accused persons but the Learned
Trial Court without application of proper mind released all the
accused persons on regular bail and challenging that order the
prosecution has filed this application for cancellation of bail
granted to all the accused persons. Learned Addl. P.P. in support
of his contention further submitted that after release on bail the
accused persons threatened the informant and his family
members and accordingly the informant of this case submitted
one prayer to O/C, Amtali PS on 14.02.2025 and accordingly a
prosecution report was submitted by Police against the five
respondents excepting Papan Chakraborty which is also annexed
with the application as Annexure-5 and the copy of PR is also
annexed with the application as Annexure-6. Learned Addl. P.P. in
support of his contention further submitted that the chargesheet
was submitted by I.O. within time because the case was
registered on 18.09.2024 and the same was forwarded to the
Learned Court of Jurisdictional Magistrate on 19.09.2024 and the
I.O. submitted chargesheet on 13.12.2024 i.e. within the statutory
period of limitation. Thus it appears that the Learned Addl.
Sessions Judge at the time of consideration of the bail application
ignored the prayer of the I.O. and mechanically passed the order
without reflecting any of the grounds ignoring the report of the
I.O. for which the intervention of the Court is required and urged
for rejection of the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by Learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in
connection with Case No.ST(T-1)03 of 2025.
Thereafter Learned Addl. P.P. in support of his contention
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Y
vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2022) 9 SCC
269 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos.8,9 and 12
observed as to how the bail be granted in a case.
"8. This Court has, in a catena of judgments, outlined the
considerations on the basis of which discretion under Section
439, CrPC has to be exercised while granting bail. In Gurcharan
Singh v. State (Delhi Administration):(1978) 1 SCC 118 this
Court has held as to the various parameters which must be
considered while granting bail. This Court held as follows:
"24. ...Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will
have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the
question of granting of bail under Section 439(1) CrPC of
the new Code. The overriding considerations in granting
bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are
common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section
439(1) CrPC of the new Code are the nature and gravity of
the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the
position and the status of the accused with reference to
the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the
accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of
jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect
of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with
witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its
investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of
so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out."
9. The above factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. The
grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which
ultimately depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of
the case before the Court. There is no strait jacket formula which
can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be.
However, certain important factors that are always considered,
interalia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused,
nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment,
and the character, position and standing of the accused [see
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21].
12. The above principle has been consistently followed by this
Court. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496 this Court held as under:
"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order: Ashish
Chatterjee vs. State of W.B. is clearly unsustainable. It is
trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an
order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail
to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the
High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously
and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point.
It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.
xxx xxx xxx
10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to
these relevant considerations and mechanically grants
bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-
application of mind, rendering it to be illegal....."
Referring the same he submitted that in the present case the
Learned Trial Court ignored the same principle of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter Learned Addl. P.P. also
referred another citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Ajwar vs. Waseem and Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC
768 wherein in para Nos.27, 28, 29, 33 and 35 observed as
under:
"27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to
be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned
or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the
superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the
accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such
an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted
the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it
transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant
material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the
offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.
In P. vs. State of M.P. :(2022) 15 SCC 211 decided by a three
judge bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli,
J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the
Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused
under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words:
"24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for
cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider
whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or
the conduct of the accused post grant of bail
demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial
to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial: (1995) 1 SCC 349. To put it
differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be
loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court
below granting bail but if such an order is found to be
illegal or perverse or premised on material that is
irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny
and interference by the appellate court."
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SETTING ASIDE BAIL ORDERS
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for
setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the
aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may
have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of
the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused
to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of
threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any
attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence
in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and
not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the
stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be
examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case
that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided.
Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors
that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the
accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh: (2022)9 SCC 321, a three-Judges bench of
this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail
under Section 439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude and the High Court
or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with
considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But
this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect
due application of judicial mind following well established
principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to
interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the
courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or
perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate
Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the
bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Ram Bilas :(2001) 6 SCC 338; Narendra
K. Amin v. State of Gujarat :(2008) 13 SCC 584.
DISCUSSION
33. Furthermore and most importantly, the High Court has
overlooked the period of custody of the respondents-accused for
such a grave offence alleged to have been committed by them.
As per the submission made by learned counsel for the State of
UP, before being released on bail, the accused Waseem had
undergone custody for a period of about two years four months,
the accused Nazim for a period of two years eight months, the
accused Aslam for a period of about two years nine months and
the accused Abubakar, for a period of two years ten months. In
other words, all the accused-respondents have remained in
custody for less than three years for such a serious offence of a
double murder for which they have been charged.
35. All the aforesaid factors when examined collectively, leave
no manner of doubt that the respondents do not deserve the
concession of bail. As a result, all the four impugned orders are
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to
surrender within two weeks from the date of passing of this
order. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above
are limited to examining the infirmities in the impugned orders
and shall not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the
matter which is still pending trial. It is also clarified that in the
event of any new circumstances emerging, the respondents shall
be entitled to apply for bail at a later stage."
Referring the same he submitted that considering the nature
and gravity of the offence and the fact that there is direct
allegation against the respondent-accused persons Learned Court
below granted bail to all the respondent-accused persons knowing
the fact that the chargesheet was submitted within time and
furthermore in the order Learned Trial Court did not mention any
reasons as to why he considered the applications for bail without
showing any specific reasons in a case of this nature which shows
non-application of mind by the Learned Trial Court. He also relied
upon another citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharatbhai
Bhimabhai Bharwad vs. State of Gujrat and Others reported
in (2020) 18 SCC 693 wherein in para Nos.9 and 10 Hon'ble the
Apex Court further observed as under:
"8. Though the application has been filed before the High Court
under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. an application for cancellation
of bail, by perusal of the grounds raised in the application, it is
seen that the appellant has raised grounds challenging the
exercise of discretion in granting bail to respondents No.2 and 3
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and that the order granting bail is
unsustainable in law. In effect, the application filed was only
challenging the order of grant of bail on the ground that it was
an arbitrary exercise of discretion. The Court while granting bail
should exercise its discretion in judicious manner by taking into
consideration the relevant facts as held in State of U.P. through
CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi: (2005) 8 SCC 21.
9. It is well settled that the consideration applicable for
cancellation of bail and consideration for challenging the order of
grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion are
different. While considering the application for cancellation of
bail, the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening
circumstances like; tampering of evidence either during
investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, the accused
is likely to abscond and the trial of the case getting delayed on
that count etc. Whereas, in an order challenging the grant of bail
on the ground that it has been granted illegally, the
consideration is whether there was improper or arbitrary
exercise of discretion in grant of bail. The appellant has
challenged the very grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary
exercise of discretion ignoring the relevant materials to be
considered in the application for bail. Since the High Court
proceeded under the footing as if the appellant had filed the
application only for cancellation of bail for which, the
consideration is different, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for
consideration of the matter afresh."
Referring the same he submitted that in the present case at
the time of consideration of the bail application Learned Trial
Court did not follow the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court time and again in different cases and finally urged for
cancellation of the bail granted to all the accused persons.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel Mr. H. K. Bhowmik and
Mr. P. Sen Chowdhury, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents No.1-4 drawn the attention of the Court that the
prosecution in this case did not challenge the initial order of bail
dated 04.01.2025 passed by Learned J.M., First Class, Court No.2,
Agartala, West Tripura in PRC(WP) 579 of 2024 and in this case
according to Learned defence counsels chargesheet was submitted
after the statutory period and furthermore referring the
chargesheet they drawn the attention of the court that in the
chargesheet just at the last line the I.O. only submitted to allow
the custody trial of all the FIR named accused persons. But the
I.O. in his report failed to satisfy as to why the custody trial is
required in this case and furthermore there was no infirmity in the
order of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Learned Counsels further
submitted that in the last portion of the chargesheet it was
submitted by the I.O. that "Supplementary chargesheet will be
submitted after receiving SFSL Reports from SFSL Narsingarh
following procedural norms" which means the chargesheet was
incomplete meaning thereby according to Learned defence
counsels the investigation was not completed. So how the I.O.
after filing part chargesheet drawn the attention of the court for
holding custody trial of the accused persons without assigning any
specific reasons. Learned Counsels thereafter drawn the attention
of the Court referring Annexure-5 i.e. the prayer submitted by the
informant Badal Saha to O/C Amtali PS wherein the informant only
sought for making a GD entry and protection and accordingly to
Learned defence Counsels on the basis of the said prayer a PR has
already been submitted and more interestingly in the PR the name
of the witnesses shown who are the family members of the
informant and if the contents of the said allegation/complaint were
true which prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence
and in that case the I.O. or the O/C of the concerned PS definitely
could register a specific case under IPC or BNS but without
registering any specific case how the I.O. has submitted simply a
PR under erstwhile 107 of Cr.P.C. now 126 of BNSS which shows
that with an ulterior motive the petition was filed before the Police
Station for the purpose of harassing the accused persons.
Learned defence counsels in their second phase of argument
further submitted that as per order dated 07.01.2025 the accused
persons were released on bail by the Learned Trial Court.
Thereafter further date was fixed on 20.01.2025 and after that the
case was fixed on 17.04.2025 and on 17.04.2025 again further
date was given on 14.08.2025. But on the aforesaid dates no
prayer was submitted either by I.O. or by the prosecution to the
concerned court for cancellation of their bail. Nor they submitted
any prayer to the concerned court that the respondent-accused
persons have violated the conditions of the order of bail granted to
them or they have threatened the witnesses of the prosecution in
any manner and this petition was filed by the prosecution before
this court on 06.03.2025. But surprisingly no step was taken on
the part of the prosecution either to the Learned Court below for
cancellation of the bail granted to them nor the prosecution has
challenged the prosecution report filed under Section 126 of BNS
to any other forum which shows that the prosecution has not
come before the court with clean hands and just to harass the
accused persons they have filed this application for cancellation of
bail.
Learned Counsel Mr. S. Lodh appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.5 drawn the attention of this court that on bare
perusal of the FIR it is crystal clear that the said respondent at
best could be a prosecution witness in this case but surprisingly he
has been booked in this case as an accused only on the ground
that on the alleged day he was standing at a considerable distance
from the alleged P.O. and witnessed the occurrence. But the
prosecution could not place any material against him showing his
direct participation with the alleged crime and furthermore
Learned Counsel also drawn the attention of the court referring
the contents of the FIR and the statements of two witnesses and
also the contents of the prayer i.e. Annexure-5 made to O/C
Amtali PS wherein the informant specifically stated the name of
four persons i.e. Santanu Sen, Dilip Banik, Jayanta Debnath and
Dipan Banik along with 10/12 other persons. But surprisingly in
the PR Police has reflected the name of his client Piklu Sen as OP
second party No.5, but totally remained silent in respect of other
persons whose numbers were reflected in the complaint laid to
O/C Amtali PS on 14.02.2025 by the informant of this case and
adopting the submission made by Learned Counsel Mr. H. K.
Bhowmik and Learned Counsel Mr. P. Sen Chowdhury Learned
Counsel Mr. Lodh submitted that the said complaint was only for
making a GD entry and if the contents of the petition were correct
in that case the O/C of the concerned PS could definitely register a
specific case against all the accused persons including his client.
But surprisingly no action was taken by the I.O. or the O.C. to
submit prayer to the concerned Trial Court for cancellation of the
bail granted to the accused persons simply they submitted one PR
and that prosecution report also has not been challenged by the
prosecution in this case which shows that the stand of the
prosecution are contrary to each other and in support of his
contention he relied upon one citation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2004) 2 SCC 362 wherein in para No.11 Hon'ble the
Apex Court observed as under:
"11. Learned counsel for the appellant is correct on principles
that mere assertion of an alleged threat to witnesses should not
be utilized as a ground for cancellation of bail, routinely.
Otherwise, there is ample scope for making such allegation to
nullify the bail granted. The Court before which such allegations
are made should in each case carefully weigh the acceptability of
the allegations and pass orders as circumstances warrant in law.
Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously so that actual
interference with the ordinary and normal course of justice is
nipped at the bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached."
Referring the same Learned Counsel submitted that the
prosecution could not place any material before the Court for
interference and furthermore after granting bail on so many dates
this present respondent along with others appeared before the
Trial Court but before the Trial Court no such prayer was made
either by the informant or by the prosecution or by the I.O. that
the respondent-accused persons have violated the conditions of
the bail granted to them. So he urged for dismissal of the
application of the prosecution.
Further Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Sarkar assisted by Mr.
K.D. Singha, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.6 first of all drawn the attention of the Court that
in this case according to prosecution there are two eye witnesses
and from the statement of those witnesses there was no allegation
that his client i.e the respondent No.6 participated in the
commission of crime. At best according to the Learned Senior
Counsel the said accused person could be a best prosecution
witness rather the prosecution falsely implicated him in this case.
He further submitted that in the GD there was no allegation
against him even the Police also did not submit any PR against
him and finally adopting the submission made by Learned Counsel
Mr. H. K. Bhowmik and Learned Counsel Mr. P. Sen Chowdhury he
submitted that there is no material for cancellation of bail granted
by the Learned Trial Court at this stage and urged for rejecting the
application filed by the prosecution for cancellation of bail granted
to the respondent-accused persons.
I have heard detailed submission of both the sides and also
perused the citations referred by Learned Counsels of both the
parties and also perused the relevant prosecution papers. In this
case the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of an FIR
laid by one Badal Saha i.e. the father of the deceased alleging
inter alia that on 18.09.2024 his son Subhankar Saha was
returning back to home with his friends driving his scooty after
watching Biswakarma Puja at about 12.30 hours when some
scuffling were taken place in between two groups and out of them
one group armed with sharp cutting weapon attacked his son and
caused injury to his head, face and inflicted blows upon the body
of his son by sharp cutting weapon resulting which his son
sustained bleeding injuries and fell down on the road and his
friends also tried to save him and sustained injuries. He was
immediately taken to Hapania Hospital from where he was
referred to GBP Hospital and due to causing of hurt his son
sustained fatal injuries and the FIR was accordingly laid and
thereafter his son succumbed to his injuries and the case was
registered and the I.O after completion of investigation submitted
chargesheet against all the respondent-accused persons as
already stated. The respondent-accused persons were in custody
for a considerable period of time and later on they were released
on bail by order dated 07.01.2025.
It is the admitted position that the prosecution did not file
any prayer for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent-
accused persons to the Learned Trial Court where the bail was
granted by the order dated 07.01.2025. Although legally there is
no bar to approach for cancellation of bail before this court also. I
have also perused the order passed by Learned Trial Court on
07.01.2025. It is the admitted position that although in the
chargesheet the I.O. in the last para urged for holding custody
trial but there was no justification/reasons as to why the I.O
sought for holding custody trial of the respondent-accused
persons. In this regard Learned Trial Court gave detailed
observations. It is the settled position of law that bail once
granted can not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner but at the
same time it is also true that unreasoned or perverse order can
always be open for challenge to the upper forum. Here in the case
at hand from the report of I.O. it transpires that the I.O. was
contemplating to submit supplementary chargesheet after
receiving of the report of SFSL meaning thereby the I.O. up to
that time could not complete the entire investigation and he was
willing to submit supplementary chargesheet later on. So
considering the period of detention of the accused persons in
custody probably the Learned Trial Court considered the bail
application of the accused persons by order dated 07.01.2025.
The trial of the case is commenced and the case is now posted for
framing of charge. Admittedly before the Learned Trial Court no
prayer was submitted by the prosecution for cancellation of the
bail granted to all the respondent-accused persons. As observed
by the Supreme Court in aforenoted case i.e. Y. vs. State of
Rajasthan and Anr. (supra) for granting bail requires
consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon the
specific facts and circumstances of the case. There is no strait
jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the
relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that
are always considered, interalia, relates to prima facie
involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge,
severity of the punishment, and the character, position and
standing of the accused. Furthermore, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in Ajwar vs Waseem (supra) in para Nos.29 stated that in
ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order
where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found
that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly
irrelevant material, the appellate court would be well within its
power to set aside and cancel the bail. In this regard Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in a case in Kanwar Singh Meena vs.
State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2012) 12 SCC
"10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on
the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But,
while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are
guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to
say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence,
position and status of the accused with reference to the victim
and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice
and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with
the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such
other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each
criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and,
therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have
to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine
as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The
court must not undertake meticulous examination of the
evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such
assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to
deprive the accused of a fair trial. While cancelling bail
under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations
which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to
tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere
with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice.
But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can
cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers
from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the
court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima
facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant
material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail
to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be
justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well
recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such
orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of
justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the
propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee
from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the
bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel
such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing
accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately
result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse
impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of
this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the
above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail."
[Emphasis supplied]
From the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court
further it appears that in granting bail if the courts ignores
relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the
accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no
relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High
Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the
bail. Further the High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the
bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from
severe infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. In this case
the I.O. submitted chargesheet excepting the report of the SFSL.
It is also true that the informant i.e. the father of the deceased
being threatened by the respondent accused persons sought
redress to O/C Amtali PS on 14.02.2025 but surprisingly the I.O.
inspite of registering any specific case simply submitted a PR
under Section 126 of BNS previously known as 107 of Cr.P.C.
which shows negligence on the part of I.O. or lack of knowledge
by the I.O. for that the victim cannot be suffered. I have also
perused the chargesheet meticulously. Recording of evidence in
this case has not yet been commenced. But after perusal of the
order dated 07.01/2025 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura it appears that the Learned
Trial Court without assigning any specific reasons and ignoring the
available materials on record in a very casual manner granted bail
to the respondent Nos.1-4 namely Santunu Sen, Jayanta Debnath,
Dilip Banik @ Suman, Dipen Banik @ Kenchu for which it appears
to this court that the order in respect of aforesaid four
respondent-accused persons needs to be interfered with.
Accordingly the bail granted to the aforesaid four respondent-
accused persons stands cancelled as there are materials against
them showing their direct involvement with the alleged offence.
They are accordingly asked to surrender before the Learned Trial
Court on or before 05.07.2025. But considering the materials on
record the bail granted to rest two accused persons namely Sri
Piklu Sen @ Suman and Papan Chakraborty appears to be justified
although specific and valid reasons were not mentioned by
Learned Trial Court at the time of passing order of bail in respect
of aforesaid two respondent-accused persons. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of this case their order of
bail is modified to the extent that they shall execute a fresh bail
bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh) with one surety of like amount
with condition that they shall attend the Learned Court below once
in a week till conclusion of trial and they shall not make any
attempt to temper evidence on record of the prosecution nor they
shall leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission of
the court below failing which liberty is given to the prosecution to
move for appropriate action. Accordingly the said two respondents
Sri Piklu Sen @ Suman and Sri Papan Chakraborty shall execute a
fresh bail bond as per order passed by this court today to the
satisfaction of Learned Court below on or before 05.07.2025. If
the accused persons whose bail is cancelled fails to surrender in
that case the prosecution shall take step for taking them into
custody without fail by moving application to the court below.
However, before departing, it is necessary to mention here that
Learned JM First Class, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura at the
time of passing interim order to the respondent-accused persons
in connection with Case No.PRC (WP) 579 of 2024 on 04.01.2025
passed the following order:
"Considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsels and also
considering the entire matter in its totality and regard being had to
the entirety of circumstances portrayed herein above, I inclined to
grant bail to the accused persons but subject to confirmation by the
Ld. Sessions Court."
This order according to the opinion of this court was not
correct because it is the prerogative of a court concerned to pass
regular or interim order of bail, if interim order of bail is granted
in that case simply a direction may be given to appear before the
court of Sessions on a particular date. The word subject to
confirmation by Sessions Court was not required to be passed
which sometimes may create some confusion to the mind of a
person in whose favour the order is passed. However in future the
concerned court may consider to pass order in accordance with
law to avoid any legal confusion regarding granting of bail.
Send down record of the Learned Trial Court below along
with a copy of this order.
Return back the CD to the I.O. through Learned Addl. P.P.
along with a copy of this order.
A copy of this order be furnished to Learned J.M. First Class,
Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura for information.
Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
DATTA Date: 2025.06.23 22:37:02
+05'30'
Moumita
