Tripura High Court
Sri Sankar Das vs The State Of Tripura on 21 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB No.38 of 2025
1. Sri Sankar Das,
Son of Late Rakhal Das
2. Smt. Jali Rani Bhowmik (Das) @
Smt. Doly Bhowmik (Das) @ Tinku,
Wife of Sri Sankar Das,
All are resident of Melaghar, Pal Para,
P.O. & P.S. Melaghar,
District: Sepahijala, Tripura
---Applicant
-Vs-
The State of Tripura
---Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Samrat Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Rounak Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
21/05/2025
This pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of
BNSS is filed by the accused-applicants who are wanted in
connection with Sonamura PS Case No.2025SNM025 under
Section 108/3(5) of BNS, 2023.
Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. N. Majumder
assisted by Mr. Samrat Sarkar, Learned Counsel and Mr. Rounak
Chakraborty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused
persons and also heard Mr. Raju Datta, Learned P.P. appearing on
behalf of the state-respondent. As ordered earlier we have
received the record from the concerned court of the Learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned P.P. also produced the Case
Diary as ordered earlier. On the last date i.e. on 16.05.2025 we
have heard both the sides and fixed today for perusal of the CD
and hearing of this bail application.
Today in course of hearing Learned Senior Counsel first
of all drawn the attention of the Court referring the contents of the
FIR and submitted that from the contents of the FIR no case is
made out against the present applicants involving their
prosecution punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023. Learned
Senior Counsel further in support of his contention drawn the
attention of the Court referring the provision of Section 108 of
BNS, 2023 and also the provision of Section 45 of BNS, 2023 and
submitted that on bare perusal of the said provisions it is crystal
clear that no case is made out against any of the present
applicants under Section 108 of BNS, 2023.
Learned Senior Counsel to strengthen his submission
referred one citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar
vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2001 AIR SCW 4282
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.20 has been pleased to
explain the term instigation to invoke prosecution under Section
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is
not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is
not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In addition to that he further referred another citation in S.S.
Chheeba vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another reported in
2010 AIR SCW 4938 wherein in para No.24 Hon'ble the Apex
Court further observed as under:
"24. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of
this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618. In this case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion
to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the
husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do
whatever you wish and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of
the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in para 20
has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para
20 reads as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do `an act'. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where
the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course
of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case
an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit
of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
Referring both the citations Learned Senior Counsel
submitted that considering the present situation and the facts and
circumstances of the case the present applicants are required to
be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail for the sake of justice.
On the other hand, Learned P.P. strongly opposed the
bail application and submitted that the case is at the very
preliminary stage of investigation. By this time the I.O. has
collected some materials showing implication of the present
applicants with the alleged crime and furthermore accused No.1
Taniya Das (in the FIR) was granted bail by the Court of Learned
Sessions Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijala District on the ground that
she is having one milk sucking baby. Learned P.P. further
submitted that the citations as relied upon by Learned Senior
Counsel are based upon the conclusion of the trial and the
principles of those citations cannot be applied during this
preliminary stage of investigation and he further submitted that if
at this stage the bail application is considered in that case there is
every chance of tempering the evidence on record of the
prosecution and urged for rejection of the bail application.
This present case was registered on the basis of an FIR laid
by the father of the deceased Sri Niranjan Das to O.C., Sonamura
P.S. alleging inter alia that his son Rupantar Das got appointed as
a Teacher in the year 2022 under the Education Department,
Government of Tripura and thereafter his marriage was
solemnized with one Taniya Das, the accused No.1 of the FIR.
After marriage both his son and the accused No.1 started conjugal
life for a period of two months and thus the accused No.1 became
pregnanat. Thereafter said Taniya Das was shifted to her parental
house for the purpose of her care and nursing. But she did not
turn up. So on 26.01.2024 his son and along with some of the
local people went to the parental home of Taniya when the
accused persons refused to return back and the accused Taniya
used some unparliamentarily words. Thereafter on 16.03.2025 his
son was called by the accused persons with an assurance that
Taniya would be sending back to her matrimonial home. But when
his son went there that time the accused persons refused to
return her back stating that he should come with some
respectable persons for a formal talk. Thereafter the informant
along with some neighbouring persons went to the house of the
accused applicants when after discussion it was decided that
Taniya would be returning back to her matrimonial home. But
suddenly the accused No.2 i.e. the mother-in-law of the deceased
made some unparliamentarily words to his son with some filthy
languages. Thereafter on that day in the evening they returned
back and as a result of which his son mentally broke down.
Thereafter on that day in the night again his son made a call from
his mobile to his wife and requested her to come back when the
present applicants also used filthy languages towards his son and
thereafter his son started weeping and went to his room. But on
17.03.2025 in the morning when his son was not awakening from
his sleep on their call then they had broken the door and found
that his son was hanging from ceiling of the room and committed
suicide. This is the gist of the FIR and on the basis of the FIR this
present case was registered.
I have heard both the sides at length and perused the
citations referred by the Learned Senior Counsel and also the
relevant provisions of law referred by Learned Senior Counsel
regarding allegation of the prosecution. It is the admitted position
that, the case is at the very initial stage of investigation and by
this time Learned Sessions Judge has granted pre-arrest bail to
the accused No.1 on the ground that she is having one milk
sucking baby. Since the investigation of the case is in progress so
at this stage it would not be proper to give any specific
observation regarding application of the particular provision of law
which may hamper the investigation of the case. However, since
by this time the I.O. has recorded the statement of some of the
witnesses and also arranged for recording statement of some of
the witnesses by the Learned Magistrate which are also available
on the record. It appears to this court that the actual dispute
probably arose amongst the rival parties on the ground that the
accused Taniya Das did not return back to her matrimonial home
after repeated communication by the deceased and his family
members. Now regarding application of provision of Section 108 of
BNS since the investigation is in progress so till recording
evidences of the witnesses of the prosecution it is very difficult to
give any specific observation as to whether Section 108 would be
applied or not and this observation only can be given after
conclusion of trial of the case in the event of filing chargesheet by
the I.O. However so far as the materials collected by I.O. it
appears to this court that prima facie involvement of the accused-
applicant No.2, Jali Rani Bhowmik (Das) @ Smt. Doly Bhowmik
(Das) @ Tinku cannot be ruled out at this stage. So I do not find
any scope to consider her pre-arrest bail application at this stage
being prematured one. However, considering the materials on
record up to the stage of investigation it appears that the
custodial interrogation of accused No.1 Sankar Das may not be
required because from the Case Diary I do not find any sufficient
materials showing his direct implication with the alleged
prosecution levelled against the accused person under Section 108
of BNS. As such, I am inclined to consider his pre-arrest bail
application at this stage and accordingly the pre-arrest bail
application in respect of accused Sankar Das is hereby allowed
with the following terms and conditions:
(i) That in the event of arrest the accused shall execute a
bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with one
surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the O.C. of
the concerned P.S.;
(ii) The accused shall not make any sort of attempt to
temper or hamper the evidence on record of the
prosecution;
(iii) The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court
without any prior intimation and permission of the O.C.
of the concerned P.S.
However, it is made clear that during investigation if it is
found that the accused violates the condition of bail in that case
the I.O. shall be at liberty to file appropriate application to the
concerned court for cancellation of the privilege granted to him.
With this observation, this pre-arrest bail application stands
disposed of.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of this order.
Return back the CD to the I.O. through Learned P.P. along
with a copy of this order. Also a copy of this order be furnished to
the Learned Senior Counsel for information and necessary action.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2025.05.21 06:27:58
+05'30'
Moumita
