Tripura High Court
Sri Bidyut Bahni Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura on 11 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B. No.66 of 2025
Sri Bidyut Bahni Chakraborty, Age 48 years,
S/O- Lt. Benu Badan Chakraborty,
Resident of near T.V Tower, Sreenagar,
A.D. Nagar, P.O & P.S.- A.D. Nagar,
Agartala, District - West Tripura.
.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Tripura,
(To be represented by the L'd Public Prosecutor, Hon'ble High
Court of Tripura)
.......Respondent
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
11/09/2025
This pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 is filed for granting bail to the accused-applicant Sri
Bidyut Bahni Chakraborty in connection with Kumarghat P.S. Case
No.13/2025 (2025 KGT 013) under Section 314/316(5) of BNS,
2023.
Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman
assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. K. Nath appearing on behalf of the
accused-applicant and also heard Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta
appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
Today Learned P.P. has produced the CD also we have
received the record from the Learned Trial Court.
Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
P. Roy Barman appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant first of
all drawn the attention of the Court referring the contents of the FIR
laid by one Nisith Chakraborti, TFS, Divisional Manager, Northern
Division, TFDPC Ltd. Kumarghat, North Tripura to O/C, Kumarghat
Police Station dated 01.08.2025, on the basis of which this present
case has been registered.
Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman further drawn the
attention of the Court referring Annexure-4 i.e. the communication
dated 23.06.2025 written by the Divisional Manager, Northern
Division, Kumarghat, TFDPC Ltd. to the accused applicant and
subsequent officer order dated 19.06.2025 issued by the same
Divisional Manager and found that those documents are
contradictory to each other. In one document i.e. in Annexure-4 it
was shown total shortage of Sheet Rubber 21558.00 Kg and on the
other hand in Annexure-7 i.e. the office order dated 19.06.2025 in
respect of NC Para RPC total stock has been shown and the total
stock position on 17.06.2025 is shown 26.613 MT. Referring those
documents Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman drawn the
attention of the Court that the said documents are contradictory to
each other and also contrary to the contents of the FIR laid by the
same informant.
It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy
Barman appearing for the accused-applicant by this time the
departmental proceeding has been initiated against the accused-
applicant and there is no chance of his absconsion and considering
the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned Senior Counsel for the
accused-applicant submitted that since the accused-applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case so concession of pre-arrest bail
may be granted to him.
It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that at one
point of time this accused person has been rewarded by order dated
23.04.2025 (Annexure-3) by the department and by the said order
he was given promotion by the department. So, this present
prosecution is nothing but a manufactured story to blemish the
career of the present accused-applicant.
On the other hand, Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta appearing on
behalf of the State-respondent submitted that there are serious
allegations against the accused-applicant regarding misappropriation
of rubber sheets as an In-charge of the relevant RPC and from the
contents of the FIR it appears that there was total defalcation of
24912 Kg of Rubber Sheet and 5482 Kg of Scrap Rubber after
physical verification of the stock which amounts to
Rs.50,44,816.00/- (approx.). Thus, a serious loss has been caused to
the Government exchequer and it is a case under economic offence.
By this time the I/O has recorded the statement of some of the
witnesses who are very much conversant with the facts and
circumstance of the case and from the enquiry report of the
committee there is clear misappropriation of 26890 Kg of Rubber
Sheet and Scrap Rubber till the month of July and if at this stage the
concession of pre-arrest bail is granted to the accused-applicant then
the investigation would be hampered and to unearth the truth the
custodial interrogation of the accused is very much required for the
sake of investigation.
Learned P.P. placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 wherein in para Nos.75,
77, 78, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:-
"75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation
intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v.
State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4
SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under: (SCC
p. 313, para 19)
"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several
purposes. The accused may have to be questioned
in detail regarding various facets of motive,
preparation, commission and aftermath of the
crime and the connection of other persons, if any,
in the crime. There may be circumstances in
which the accused may provide information
leading to discovery of material facts. It may be
necessary to curtail his freedom in order to
enable the investigation to proceed without
hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons
connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent
his disappearance, to maintain law and order in
the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest
may become an inevitable part of the process of
investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest
cannot be gone into in an application under
Section 438 of the Code. The role of the
investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional
scope of interference by the court in the process
of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily
will not interfere with the investigation of a crime
or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable
offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if
passed while dealing with an application under
Section 438 of the Code will amount to
interference in the investigation, which cannot, at
any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme
Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19)
"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offence are required to be satisfied and
further while granting such relief, the court must
record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can
be granted only in exceptional circumstances
where the court is prima facie of the view that the
applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime
and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K.
Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh
Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v.
Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.
Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain
Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain
Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri)
1] .)"
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases
of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a
different class as they affect the economic fabric of the
society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar
Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain,
(1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that
in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to
anticipatory bail."
Referring the same, Learned P.P. submitted that considering
the nature and gravity of the offence at this stage there is no scope
to consider pre-arrest bail to the accused.
Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta further referred another citation of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC
439 wherein in para Nos.34 and 35, Hon'ble the Apex Court
observed as under:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
to be visited with a different approach in the matter of
bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need
to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country.
35. 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."
Referring the same, Learned P.P. submitted that in view of the
principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court there is no
scope to consider pre-arrest bail to the accused in this case at this
stage. Learned P.P. also relied upon one order dated 02.08.2025
passed by this Court in connection with B.A. No.43 of 2025.
Referring all the cases Learned P.P. submitted that since the
case is at the very initial stage so if at this stage the accused is
granted pre-arrest bail then the investigation of the case would be
seriously hampered and urged for dismissal of the pre-arrest bail
application.
To the contrary, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman
appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant submitted that the
submission of Learned P.P. cannot be accepted at this stage as
because this present case does not come under the purview of
economic offence as alleged by Learned P.P. representing the
prosecution and urged for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused-
applicant for the sake of investigation in any condition.
Considered.
In the case at hand the prosecution was set into motion on the
basis of an FIR dated 01.08.2025 laid by one Mr. Nisith Chakraborti,
TFS, Divisional Manager, Northern Division TFDPC Ltd., Kumarghat,
Unakoti District to O/C alleging inter alia that as per official stock
register maintained at NC Para RPC and as per stock report
submitted by O/C during monthly meeting held on 17.05.2025, the
quantity of rubber in stock was recorded as follows:-
Sheet Rubber : 24,358 Kg.
Scrap Rubber : 6,335 Kg.
But in course of physical verification conducted by 03 (three)
members committee of the Northern Division on 25.05.2025, it was
found that actual quantity of stock present was significantly less as
follows:-
Sheet Rubber : 8,800 Kg.
Scrap Rubber : 335 Kg.
Thereafter a committee was appointed to enquire the matter
on 06.06.2025 and the committee examined the stock position and
as per stock position they have found shortage of 24912 Kg of
Sheets Rubber and 5482 Kg. of Scrap Rubber which involves
financial amount of Rs.50,44,816.00/- (approx.). According to the
informant the present accused-applicant being the Officer In-charge
of NC Para RPC was responsible for the stock in the said RPC.
Accordingly the FIR was laid. On the basis of the FIR this present
case was registered.
At the time of hearing as already submitted Learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the accused-applicant drawn the attention of
the Court referring Annexure-4 i.e. the communication dated
23.06.2025 and Annexure-7 i.e. the office order dated 19.06.2025
and submitted that there was mismatch between the said
communication/office order. But on careful perusal of those
communication and office order it appears that based on the report
submitted by the present accused-applicant the position was shown
in the said communication and office order. But on bare perusal of
the FIR it appears that the three members committee after physical
verification opined that there was shortage of 24920 Kg. of Sheets
Rubber and 5482 Kg. of Scrap Rubber. The present case is registered
under Section 314/316(5) of BNS, 2023.
I have also perused the statement of the witnesses recorded by
I/O upto this stage of investigation and also the report of the inquiry
committee formed by the department to find out the truth from
which it appears that there was huge shortage of Rubber Sheets and
Scrap Rubber which revealed after physical verification of the stock
of the concerned RPC.
From the statement of the witnesses so far recorded by I/O,
the prima facie involvement of the accused-applicant cannot be ruled
out at this stage and moreso, I have also perused the citations
referred by Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent
and it appears that this present case obviously false under the
category of economic offence. So considering the nature and
allegation of the prosecution at this stage I do not find any scope to
presume the accused-applicant to be innocent to grant the
concession of pre-arrest bail to him. Moreso, in view of the principle
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above in a
case of this nature, nature of the acquisition, the nature of evidence
and the severity of punishment are also to be considered. Since the
case is at the very initial stage and Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar by order dated
21.08.2025 also rejected his bail application. So, at this stage I do
not find any scope to grant the privilege of concession of pre-arrest
bail to the accused-applicant. Hence, the pre-arrest bail application
filed by the accused-applicant stands rejected.
Return back the CD to I.O. through Learned P.P. along
with a copy of this order.
Also return back the record to the Learned Trial Court along
with a copy of this order.
With this observation, this pre-arrest bail application
stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Amrita
AMRITA DEB DEB
Date: 2025.09.12 12:26:25
+05'30'
