Tripura High Court
Accused vs The State Of Tripura on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B. No.82 of 2025
Sahadat Hossen, age 40 years,
S/O-Lt. Rasul Uddain,
Resident of Chandrapur, Bhuiya Para,
P.S.-Radhakishorepur, Udaipur,
Gomati Tripura.
---- Accused applicant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
(To be represented by the Ld Public Prosecutor,
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura)
[---
----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
21/11/2025
This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS,
2023 is filed for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicant namely,
Sahadat Hossen in connection with R.K. Pur Women PS case No.2025
WRP 042 registered under Sections 85/64(2)(f)/115(2)/ 351(3)/319(2) of
BNS, 2023.
Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman
assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Kawsik Nath appearing on behalf of the
accused-applicant. Also heard Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha
appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
As ordered by this Court, received the record from the
Learned Trial Court. Learned Addl. P.P. has also produced the case diary.
Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the
accused-applicant first of all drawn the attention to this Court to the
contents of the F.I.R. and submitted that this is nothing but a
manufactured case against the accused-applicant. Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the informant and the present accused-applicant
got married to each other in the year 2011 under Special Marriage Act,
1954. The Certificate of Marriage has been issued by Special Marriage
Officer, West Tripura District i.e. ADM & Collector, West Tripura District
on 19.09.2011 (Annexure-2). Since 2011, they are living together as
husband and wife and out of their marital tie, two issues were born, who
by this time have grown up. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that both
the informant and the accused-applicant are leading peaceful conjugal life
as husband and wife but, some of the persons of the locality, to grab the
land property of the deceased husband (first husband) of the informant
have compelled her to lodge complaint against the accused-applicant and
his brother. It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that
after filing of the F.I.R. on 09.10.2025, the informant on several
occasions went to the concerned PS to withdraw her case but, that was
not considered by the O/C of the concerned PS. Learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that narrating everything, the informant had also
forwarded one letter to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Gomati
District but inspite of that no action has been taken. Now, just to harass
the accused-applicant the police has become more pro-active at the
instance of the third persons who forced the informant-cum-victim to
lodge the F.I.R. against the accused-applicant and his brother with a
mala fide intention to grab the property of her first husband at
Rajarbagh, Udaipur.
In support of his contention, Learned Senior Counsel relied
upon one citation of the High Court of Allahabad in Salamat Ansari &
Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [in Crl. Mis. Writ Petition No.11367
of 2020] reported in 2020 SCC OnLine All 1382 where the High Court
of Allahabad dismissed the F.I.R. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that
this present case is squarely covered by the said citation of High Court of
Allahabad.
On the contrary, Learned Addl. P.P. for the State-respondent
drawn the attention of this Court that the submission of Learned Senior
Counsel cannot be accepted at this stage because the informant made
incriminating statement against the accused-applicant and his brother not
only in the F.I.R. but also during her statement to the police and to the
Court, she narrated the same fact. Had there be any force or coercion, in
that case she could divulge the fact to Learned Magistrate also who
recorded her judicial statement. So, at this stage of investigation, there is
no scope to grant pre-arrest bail to the present accused-applicant.
Today, in course of hearing the informant appeared before
this Court in-person. She was examined in camera when she stated that
she was married to one Swapan Sarkar and after his death she made in
contact with the accused-applicant and out of love and affection they got
married to each other under Special Marriage Act. The informant further
stated that since 2011 she is staying with her husband i.e. the accused-
applicant and leading peaceful conjugal life. But, some local persons
namely, Sameer Pal and Pritam Dutta forced her to lodge the complaint
against the accused-applicant and his brother and under their pressure
she was compelled to divulge everything, otherwise her life and the lives
of her children would be in danger.
Now, after hearing both the sides it is to determine as to
whether at this stage there is scope to grant pre-arrest bail to the
present accused-applicant?
I have perused the application for bail and the connected
documents submitted on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also perused
the initial F.I.R. laid by the informant and the case diary produced by the
prosecution.
At the time of hearing, Learned Addl. P.P. only drawn the
attention of this Court the contents of the F.I.R., the statement of the
informant to the police and also the statement recorded by Learned
Magistrate wherein she made incriminating statement against the
accused-applicant. However, regarding the documents annexed with the
application, Learned Addl. P.P. did not whisper any single word that those
are fabricated and manufactured one.
I have also perused the citation of the High Court of
Allahabad. In para Nos.8, 9, 11 and 14, the said High Court gave the
following observations and finally quashed the F.I.R:
"8. We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as
Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals
who out of their own free will and choice are living
together peacefully and happily over a year. The Courts
and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to
uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to live
with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion
professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and
personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship,
would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to
freedom of choice of the two individuals. We fail to
understand that if the law permits two persons even of
the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any
individual nor a family nor even State can have objection
to relationship of two major individuals who out of their
own free will are living together. Decision of an individual
who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of
his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when
this right is infringed it would constitute breach of
his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as
it includes right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner
and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
9. The Apex Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018)
16 SCC 368, decided on April 9, 2018, held as under:
"74. The principles which underlie the exercise
of the jurisdiction of a court in a habeas corpus
petition have been reiterated in several
decisions of the Court. In Gian Devi v.
Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi31, a three-
judge Bench observed that where an individual
is over eighteen years of age, no fetters could be
placed on her choice on where to reside or about
the person with whom she could stay:
"7. Whatever may be the date of birth of
the petitioner, the fact remains that she is
at present more than 18 years of age. As
the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be
placed upon her choice of the person with
whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction
be imposed regarding the place where she
should stay. The court or the relatives of
the petitioner can also not substitute their
opinion or preference for that of the
petitioner in such a matter."
(emphasis supplied)
75. The ambit of a habeas corpus petition is to
trace an individual who is stated to be missing.
Once the individual appears before the court and
asserts that as a major, she or he is not under
illegal confinement, which the court finds to be a
free expression of will, that would conclude the
exercise of the jurisdiction. In Girish v.
Radhamony a two judge Bench of this Court
observed thus:
"3. In a habeas corpus petition, all that is
required is to find out and produce in court
the person who is stated to be missing.
Once the person appeared and she stated
that she had gone of her own free will, the
High Court had no further jurisdiction to
pass the impugned order in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution."
76. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P, Bench of
two judges took judicial notice of the
harassment, threat and violence meted out
to young women and men who marry
outside their caste or faith. The court
observed that our society is emerging
through a crucial transformational period
and the court cannot remain silent upon
such matters of grave concern. In the view
of the court:
"17. This is a free and democratic country,
and once a person becomes a major he or
she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If
the parents of the boy or girl do not
approve of such inter-caste or inter-
religious marriage the maximum they can
do is that they can cut-off social relations
with the son or the daughter, but they
cannot give threats or commit or instigate
acts of violence and cannot harass the
person who undergoes such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage. We, therefore,
direct that the administration/police
authorities throughout the country will see
to it that if any boy or girl who is a major
undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage with a woman or man who is a
major, the couple is not harassed by
anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of
violence, and anyone who gives such
threats or harasses or commits acts of
violence either himself or at his instigation,
is taken to task by instituting criminal
proceedings by the police against such
persons and further stern action is taken
against such persons as provided by law."
(emphasis supplied)
77. Reiterating these principles in Bhagwan
Dass v. State (NCT OF DELHI), this Court
adverted to the social evil of honour killings
as being but a reflection of a feudal
mindset which is a slur on the nation.
78. In a more recent decision of a three
judge Bench in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas,
this Court dealt with a case where the
daughter of the appellant and respondent,
who was a major had expressed a desire to
reside in Kuwait, where she was pursuing
her education, with her father. This Court
observed thus:
"9. She has, without any hesitation, clearly
stated that she intends to go back to
Kuwait to pursue her career. In such a
situation, we are of the considered opinion
that as a major, she is entitled to exercise
her choice and freedom and the Court
cannot get into the aspect whether she has
been forced by the father or not. There may
be ample reasons on her behalf to go back
to her father in Kuwait, but we are not
concerned with her reasons. What she has
stated before the Court, that alone matters
and that is the heart of the reasoning for
this Court, which keeps all controversies at
bay.
10. It needs no special emphasis to state
that attaining the age of majority in an
individual's life has its own significance.
She/He is entitled to make her/his choice.
The courts cannot, as long as the choice
remains, assume the role of parens patriae.
The daughter is entitled to enjoy her
freedom as the law permits and the court
should not assume the role of a super
guardian being moved by any kind of
sentiment of the mother or the egotism of
the father. We say so without any
reservation."
79. These principles emerge from a
succession of judicial decisions.
Fundamental to them is the judgment of a
Constitution bench of this Court in Kanu
Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling.
11. The Apex Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India,
(2018) 7 SCC 192 came down heavily on the perpetrators
of "honour killings", which the Court found not only
horrific and barbaric but also interfering with the right to
choose a life partner and the dignity of an individual. The
Apex Court held as under:--
"44. The concept of liberty has to be weighed
and tested on the touchstone of constitutional
sensitivity, protection and the values it stands
for. It is the obligation of the Constitutional
Courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously
guard the right to liberty of an individual as the
dignified existence of an individual has an
inseparable association with liberty. Without
sustenance of liberty, subject to constitutionally
valid provisions of law, the life of a person is
comparable to the living dead having to endure
cruelty and torture without protest and tolerate
imposition of thoughts and ideas without a voice
to dissent or record a disagreement. The
fundamental feature of dignified existence is to
assert for dignity that has the spark of divinity
and the realization of choice within the
parameters of law without any kind of
subjugation. The purpose of laying stress on the
concepts of individual dignity and choice within
the framework of liberty is of paramount
importance. We may clearly and emphatically
state that life and liberty sans dignity and choice
is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to
enter into the constitutional recognition of
identity of a person.
(emphasis supplied)
45. The choice of an individual is an inextricable
part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of
where there is erosion of choice. True it is, the
same is bound by the principle of constitutional
limitation but in the absence of such limitation,
none, we mean, no one shall be permitted to
interfere in the fructification of the said choice.
If the right to express one's own choice is
obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to
think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.
When two adults marry out of their volition, they
choose their path; they consummate their
relationship; they feel that it is their goal and
they have the right to do so. And it can
unequivocally be stated that they have the right
and any infringement of the said right is a
constitutional violation...
46. It has been argued on behalf of the "Khap
Panchayats" that it is a misnomer to call them
by such a name. The nomenclature is absolutely
irrelevant. What is really significant is that the
assembly of certain core groups meet, summon
and forcefully ensure the presence of the couple
and the family members and then adjudicate and
impose punishment. Their further submission is
that these panchayats are committed to the
spreading of awareness of permissibility of
intercommunity and inter-caste marriages and
they also tell the people at large how "Sapinda"
and "Sagotra" marriages have no sanction of
law. The propositions have been structured with
immense craft and advanced with enormous zeal
and enthusiasm but the fallacy behind the said
proponements is easily decipherable. The
argument is founded on the premise that there
are certain statutory provisions and certain
judgments of this Court which prescribe the
prohibitory degrees for marriages and provide
certain guidelines for maintaining the sex ratio
and not giving any allowance for female
foeticide that is a resultant effect of sex
determination which is prohibited under the Pre-
Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition on Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for
short „PCPNDT Act‟) (See : Voluntary Health
Association of Punjab v. Union of India12 and
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union
of India13)
47. The first argument deserves to be rejected
without much discussion. Suffice it to say, the
same relates to the recognition of matrimonial
status. If it is prohibited in law, law shall take
note of it when the courts are approached.
Similarly, PCPNDT Act is a complete code. That
apart, the concern of this Court in spreading
awareness to sustain sex ratio is not to go for
sex determination and resultantly female
foeticide. It has nothing to do with the
institution of marriage."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed
or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal
liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 while
deciding the issue of right to privacy, held as under:--
298. Privacy of the individual is an essential
aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an intrinsic
and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value,
human dignity is an entitlement or a
constitutionally protected interest in itself. In its
instrumental facet, dignity and freedom are
inseparably inter-twined, each being a
facilitative tool to achieve the other. The ability
of the individual to protect a zone of privacy
enables the realization of the full value of life
and liberty. Liberty has a broader meaning of
which privacy is a subset. All liberties may not
be exercised in privacy. Yet others can be
fulfilled only within a private space. Privacy
enables the individual to retain the autonomy of
the body and mind. The autonomy of the
individual is the ability to make decisions on
vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not
been couched as an independent fundamental
right. But that does not detract from the
constitutional protection afforded to it, once the
true nature of privacy and its relationship with
those fundamental rights which are expressly
protected is understood. Privacy lies across the
spectrum of protected freedoms. The guarantee
of equality is a guarantee against arbitrary state
action. It prevents the state from discriminating
between individuals. The destruction by the
state of a sanctified personal space whether of
the body or of the mind is violative of the
guarantee against arbitrary state action. Privacy
of the body entitles an individual to the integrity
of the physical aspects of personhood. The
intersection between one's mental integrity and
privacy entitles the individual to freedom of
thought, the freedom to believe in what is right,
and the freedom of self-determination. When
these guarantees intersect with gender, they
create a private space which protects all those
elements which are crucial to gender identity.
The family, marriage, procreation and sexual
orientation are all integral to the dignity of the
individual. Above all, the privacy of the
individual recognises an inviolable right to
determine how freedom shall be exercised. An
individual may perceive that the best form of
expression is to remain silent. Silence postulates
a realm of privacy. An artist finds reflection of
the soul in a creative endeavour. A writer
expresses the outcome of a process of thought.
A musician contemplates upon notes which
musically lead to silence. The silence, which lies
within, reflects on the ability to choose how to
convey thoughts and ideas or interact with
others. These are crucial aspects of personhood.
The freedoms Under Article 19 can be fulfilled
where the individual is entitled to decide upon
his or her preferences. Read in conjunction with
Article 21, liberty enables the individual to have
a choice of preferences on various facets of life
including what and how one will eat, the way
one will dress, the faith one will espouse and a
myriad other matters on which autonomy and
self-determination require a choice to be made
within the privacy of the mind. The
constitutional right to the freedom of religion
Under Article 25 has implicit within it the ability
to choose a faith and the freedom to express or
not express those choices to the world. These
are some illustrations of the manner in which
privacy facilitates freedom and is intrinsic to the
exercise of liberty. The Constitution does not
contain a separate Article telling us that privacy
has been declared to be a fundamental right.
Nor have we tagged the provisions of Part III
with an alpha suffixed right of privacy : this is
not an act of judicial redrafting. Dignity cannot
exist without privacy. Both reside within the
inalienable values of life, liberty and freedom
which the Constitution has recognised. Privacy
is the ultimate expression of the sanctity of the
individual. It is a constitutional value which
straddles across the spectrum of fundamental
rights and protects for the individual a zone of
choice and self-determination.
(emphasis supplied)
299. Privacy represents the core of the human
personality and recognises the ability of each
individual to make choices and to take decisions
governing matters intimate and personal. Yet, it
is necessary to acknowledge that individuals live
in communities and work in communities. Their
personalities affect and, in turn are shaped by
their social environment. The individual is not a
hermit. The lives of individuals are as much a
social phenomenon. In their interactions with
others, individuals are constantly engaged in
behavioural patterns and in relationships
impacting on the rest of society. Equally, the life
of the individual is being consistently shaped by
cultural and social values imbibed from living in
the community.
(emphasis supplied)
323. Privacy includes at its core the preservation
of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life,
marriage, procreation, the home and sexual
orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be
left alone. Privacy safeguards individual
autonomy and recognises the ability of the
individual to control vital aspects of his or her
life. Personal choices governing a way of life are
intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects
heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and
diversity of our culture. While the legitimate
expectation of privacy may vary from the
intimate zone to the private zone and from the
private to the public arenas, it is important to
underscore that privacy is not lost or
surrendered merely because the individual is in
a public place. Privacy attaches to the person
since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the
human being;
(emphasis supplied)
Further, after going through Annexure-2 i.e. the Certificate Of
Marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954 issued by ADM & Collector,
West Tripura District, it appears that their marriage under Special
Marriage Act was solemnized in the year 2011 and since then, the
informant and the accused-applicant are residing together as husband
and wife having cohabitation with each other and out of their marital
bondage two issues were also born. It is submitted that since 2011 i.e.
from the date of their marriage till the filing of F.I.R. nobody challenged
their marriage. Even, the family members of the informant did not
challenge their marriage to any other forum. No documentary evidence
countering the same has also been submitted by the prosecution before
this Court. Regarding Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 i.e. subsequent F.I.R.
laid by the informant on 10.11.2025 to O/C, R.K. Pur Women PS and the
communication to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Gomati District
through registered AD post, nothing was submitted by the prosecution at
the time of hearing before this Court narrating as to the steps taken in
this regard.
The informant-cum alleged victim is an adult and aged about
39 years. Before this Court also she did not divulge anything against the
accused-applicant supporting the prosecution story. Rather she stated
that under compelling circumstances she had to make the statement to
the police and to the Court against the accused-applicant.
Even, if we assume that the prosecution story is prima facie
correct in that case also there is no scope to disbelieve Annexure-2 i.e.
the Certificate of Marriage issued by ADM & Collector, West Tripura
District and in this regard, to counter the same, nothing was submitted
by the prosecution. Further, as already stated, during that long period of
their conjugal life no case was filed challenging their marriage to any
forum and at this stage, there is no evidence on record in this regard
before this Court. So, considering all, after hearing both the parties and
also perusing the citation of the High Court of Allahabad, it appears to
this Court that the present accused-applicant is entitled to get the
concession of pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of arrest the
accused-applicant may be released on bail on his execution of bail bond
of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the
O/C of concerned PS with the following terms and conditions:
(i) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the I.O. as and
when called for, for the sake of investigation and shall co-
operate with the investigation of this case.
(ii) That the accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the O/C of
the concerned PS without prior permission.
(iii) That the accused shall not make any attempt to tamper the
evidence on record of the prosecution.
In case of violation of the conditions of bail, the I.O. shall be
at liberty to approach for cancellation of bail to the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate. However, if in course of investigation it
transpires to the I.O. that the prosecution story is correct and the life of
the victim is at stake then, the I.O. shall be at liberty to make necessary
arrangement for keeping the victim and her children, if any, to a
protective/shelter home of the Government till completion of
investigation/trial of this case subject to the order of Learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate.
With this observation, the present anticipatory bail application
stands allowed and disposed of.
Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a
copy of this order. Return back the CD to I.O. through Learned Addl. P.P.
along with a copy of this order. A copy of this order also be supplied free
of cost to the Learned Senior counsel for the accused-applicant for
information and compliance.
JUDGE
Snigdha
AMRITA Digitally signed by
AMRITA DEB
DEB Date: 2025.11.21
16:22:25 +05'30'
