Shri Sandip Khanna vs The State Of Tripura on 25 February, 2026

                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                       Crl. Petn. No.66 of 2025


   Shri Sandip Khanna, aged about 38 years,
   S/O Madal Lal, resident of Kallapur, Gujjar,
   P.O. Rampur, Maniharan,
   District-Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India;
   Presently serving in the Frontier Head Quarters of Border
   Security Force, Bagma, Gomati, at Inspector Engineering
   Branch.
                                                  ....Petitioner(s).

                               Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
   Represented by the Secretary, Department of Home,
   Civil Secretariat, P.O. Civil Secretariat- 799010,
   P.S. New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura;

2. The Director General of Police,
   Police Headquarter, Agartala, West Tripura;

3. Smt. Stihiti Debbarma,
   D/O Late Kamal Debbarma,
   Resident of Anandapur, Belonia,
   P.S.-P.R. Bari, District- Gomati, Tripura,
   Presently residing under C/o Ratan Ghosh of Barabhaiya,
   Bagma, P.S. RK Pur, District- Gomati, Tripura.
                                                 .....Respondents.


   For Petitioner(s)      :    Mr. Agniva Chakraborty, Adv.

   For Respondent(s)      :    Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

   Date of Hearing        :    19.02.2026

   Date of delivery of
   Judgment and Order :        25.02.2026

   Whether fit for
   Reporting              :    YES
                                Page 2 of 16




           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

                        Judgment & Order


           This     petition   under     Section     482   of   Cr.P.C.

corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS is filed for setting aside

the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by Learned Additional

Sessions   Judge,    Court     No.5,    West   Tripura,    Agartala   in

connection with Criminal (Misc) 176 of 2025. By the said order

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has cancelled the bail

granted to the accused-petitioner by Learned CJM, West

Tripura, Agartala vide order dated 28.07.2025 passed in

connection with West Agartala Women P.S. case No.38 of

2025.


02.        Heard     Learned      Counsel,     Mr.   A.    Chakraborty

appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner and also heard

Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta appearing on behalf of the State-

respondent.


03.        At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the

accused-petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that in this

case after completion of investigation the I.O. has submitted

charge-sheet against the present petitioner-accused. It was

further submitted by Learned Counsel that initially the case

was registered under Sections 376/419/326 of IPC read with

Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused but on
                            Page 3 of 16




completion of investigation the I.O. did not find any material

against the petitioner-accused under the ST/SC Prevention Act.

So, the I.O. simply laid charge-sheet against the accused-

petitioner under the relevant provisions of IPC.


           It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the

petitioner-accused that in this case from the contents of the

FIR it will transpire that there is no material for commission of

offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC by the accused-

petitioner. But it is the admitted position that both the victim

and the accused developed love relation with each other but

there was no deception on the part of the petitioner-accused.

So, Learned CJM based upon the materials on record rightly

granted interim bail, but the Learned Additional Sessions Judge

in absence of any materials on record with a false pretext that

after release on bail the petitioner-accused threatened the

victim cancelled the bail granted to the accused in absence of

materials on record and in support of his contention, Learned

Counsel relied upon one citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of

India reported in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of

Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein

in para Nos.18, 21 and 23, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as

under:


                        "18. To summarise the legal position that
                        emerges from the above cases, the "consent"
                        of a woman with respect to Section 375 must
                        involve an active and reasoned deliberation
                        towards the proposed act. To establish
                          Page 4 of 16




                      whether the "consent" was vitiated by a
                      "misconception of fact" arising out of a
                      promise to marry, two propositions must be
                      established. The promise of marriage must
                      have been a false promise, given in bad faith
                      and with no intention of being adhered to at
                      the time it was given. The false promise itself
                      must be of immediate relevance, or bear a
                      direct nexus to the woman's decision to
                      engage in the sexual act.

                      21. The allegations in the FIR do not on their
                      face indicate that the promise by the
                      appellant was false, or that the complainant
                      engaged in sexual relations on the basis of
                      this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR
                      that when the appellant promised to marry
                      the complainant, it was done in bad faith or
                      with the intention to deceive her. The
                      appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise
                      made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean
                      the promise itself was false. The allegations in
                      the FIR indicate that the complainant was
                      aware that there existed obstacles to
                      marrying the appellant since 2008, and that
                      she and the appellant continued to engage in
                      sexual relations long after their getting
                      married had become a disputed matter. Even
                      thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit
                      and reside with the appellant at his postings
                      and allowed him to spend his weekends at her
                      residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the
                      case that she was deceived by the appellant's
                      promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the
                      facts set out in the complainant's statements
                      are accepted in totality, no offence under
                      Section 375 IPC has occurred.

                      23. Without entering into a detailed analysis
                      of the content of the WhatsApp messages
                      sent by the appellant and the words alleged to
                      have been spoken, it is apparent that none of
                      the offences set out above are made out. The
                      messages were not in public view, no assault
                      occurred, nor was the appellant in such a
                      position so as to dominate the will of the
                      complainant.    Therefore,    even    if   the
                      allegations set out by the complainant with
                      respect to the WhatsApp messages and words
                      uttered are accepted on their face, no offence
                      is made out under the SC/ST Act (as it then
                      stood). The allegations on the face of the FIR
                      do not hence establish the commission of the
                      offences alleged."

          Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted that

in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the aforenoted case, in absence of any cogent evidence on

record, the order passed by the Court of Learned Additional
                           Page 5 of 16




Sessions Judge cannot sustained in the eye of law and as such

he prayed for setting aside the order passed by Learned

Additional Sessions Judge. It was also submitted that since by

this time charge-sheet is submitted and the accused is a

government servant, so, a scope may be given to the accused

to conduct his defence properly.


          Learned Counsel further submitted that by this time

a talk of compromise/negotiation is going on amongst the rival

parties and in this regard, the defecto-complaint in her

affidavit-in-opposition in para No.6 has specifically asserted

that the parties are trying to mitigate the disputes. Learned

Counsel in support of his contention also relied upon another

citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Prahlad Singh

Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280,

wherein in para No.6, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as

under:


                       "6. Even though there is no legal bar for a
                       Magistrate to consider an application for grant
                       of bail to a person who is arrested for an
                       offence exclusively triable by a Court of
                       Session yet it would be proper and
                       appropriate that in such a case the Magistrate
                       directs the accused person to approach the
                       Court of Session for the purposes of getting
                       the relief of bail. Even in a case where any
                       Magistrate opts to make an adventure of
                       exercising the powers under Section 437 of
                       the Code in respect of a person who is
                       suspected of the commission of such an
                       offence, arrested and detained in that
                       connection, such Magistrate has to specifically
                       negate the existence of reasonable ground for
                       believing that such an accused is guilty of an
                       offence punishable with the sentence of death
                       or imprisonment for life. In a case where the
                       Magistrate has no occasion and in fact does
                       not find, that there were no reasonable
                                 Page 6 of 16




                             grounds to believe that the accused had not
                             committed the offence punishable with death
                             or imprisonment for life, he shall be deemed
                             to be having no jurisdiction to enlarge the
                             accused on bail."

           Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted that

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there was

no bar on the part of Learned CJM to consider bail to the

accused. So, the order passed by Learned CJM was rational

and justified which has been wrongly set aside by the Learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 by the said impugned

order dated 21.11.2025. So, Learned Counsel, Mr. Chakraborty

in conclusion of his submission submitted that considering the

facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on

record since there is no evidence of commission of offence

punishable under Section 376 of IPC by the petitioner and as

such the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot

be sustained, so, Learned Counsel urged for setting aside the

order and to allow the accused-petitioner to remain on bail to

enable him to conduct his defence properly. Some more other

citations of different High Courts were also referred by the

Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing.


04.        On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on

behalf of the State-respondent submitted that in a case of this

nature there was no scope on the part of the Magistrate to

grant bail to the accused but Learned CJM committed error in

granting   bail   to   the     accused-petitioner.    It   was   further
                           Page 7 of 16




submitted that the case was initially the case was registered

under Section 376/419/326 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)

of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act and when Learned CJM heard the bail matter

that time no charge-sheet was submitted. Even at the time of

hearing, before the Court of Learned Additional Sessions

Judge, charge-sheet was not submitted by I.O. to the Court.

Furthermore, according to Learned P.P. in view of Sub-section

3 of Section 15(A) there was no scope on the part of Learned

CJM to grant bail to the accused without hearing to the victim.

For the sake of convenience, let us mention herein below

relevant provision of Sub-section 3 of Section 15(A) which

provides as under:


                              "(3) A victim or his dependent shall have
                              the right to reasonable, accurate, and
                              timely notice of any Court proceeding
                              including any bail proceeding and the
                              Special Public Prosecutor or the State
                              Government shall inform the victim
                              about any proceedings under this Act."

          From the aforesaid provision, it appears that a

victim or his dependent shall have arrayed to reasonable,

accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including

any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the

State   Government    shall    inform    the   victim    about    any

proceedings under that Act.


05.       Here, there is no materials on record from the side

of the prosecution that the aforesaid provision has been
                           Page 8 of 16




complied with by the Special Public Prosecutor even there is

nothing on record to show that Learned CJM has made any

communication to the victim at the time of hearing of bail

matters. Learned P.P. further in support of his contention also

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

in Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. reported in

(2021) SCC OnLine SC 1010, wherein in para Nos.14, 15

and 17, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:


                       "14. Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act contains
                       important provisions that safeguard the rights
                       of the victims of caste-based atrocities and
                       witnesses. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section
                       15-A specifically make the victim or their
                       dependent an active stakeholder in the
                       criminal proceedings. These provisions enable
                       a member of the marginalised caste to
                       effectively pursue a case and counteract the
                       effects of defective investigations. Sub-
                       sections (1) to (5) of Section 15-A are
                       extracted below:

                           "15-A. Rights of victims and witnesses.--
                           (1) It shall be the duty and responsibility
                           of the State to make arrangements for
                           the    protection    of    victims,  their
                           dependents, and witnesses against any
                           kind of intimidation or coercion or
                           inducement or violence or threats of
                           violence.

                           (2) A victim shall be treated with
                           fairness, respect and dignity and with
                           due regard to any special need that
                           arises because of the victim's age or
                           gender or educational disadvantage or
                           poverty.

                           (3) A victim or his dependent shall have
                           the right to reasonable, accurate, and
                           timely notice of any court proceeding
                           including any bail proceeding and the
                           Special Public Prosecutor or the State
                           Government shall inform the victim
                           about any proceedings under this Act.

                           (4) A victim or his dependent shall have
                           the right to apply to the Special Court or
                           the Exclusive Special Court, as the case
                           may    be,   to   summon     parties   for
                           production of any documents or material,
         Page 9 of 16




          witnesses    or   examine   the   persons
          present.

          (5) A victim or his dependent shall be
          entitled to be heard at any proceeding
          under this Act in respect of bail,
          discharge, release, parole, conviction or
          sentence of an accused or any connected
          proceedings or arguments and file
          written    submission     on  conviction,
          acquittal or sentencing."

                               (emphasis supplied)

    15. Sub-section (3) of Section 15-A confers a
    statutory right on the victim or their
    dependents to reasonable, accurate, and
    timely notice of any court proceeding
    including a bail proceeding. In addition, sub-
    section   (3)    requires  a   Special   Public
    Prosecutor or the State Government to inform
    the victim about any proceeding under the
    Act. Sub-section (3) confers a right to a prior
    notice, this being evident from the use of the
    expression "reasonable, accurate, and timely
    notice of any court proceeding including any
    bail proceeding". Sub-section (5) provides for
    a right to be heard to the victim or to a
    dependent. The expression "dependent" is
    defined in Section 2(bb) thus:

          "2. (bb) "dependent" means the spouse,
          children, parents, brother and sister of
          the victim, who are dependent wholly or
          mainly on such victim for his support and
          maintenance;"

The provisions of sub-section (3) which stipulate
the requirement of notice and of sub-section (5)
which confers a right to be heard must be
construed harmoniously. The requirement of
issuing a notice facilitates the right to be heard.

17. The Gujarat High Court in Hemal Ashwin Jain v.
Union of India [Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of
India, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 3285] , observed that :
(SCC OnLine Guj, paras 38, 54 & 62)

    "38. The victims, even today, have no
    semblance of rights at the investigation stage
    and a feeble position at the trial stage of a
    criminal prosecution.

    ***

54. We are also not impressed by the argument of Mr Popat that Section 15-A(3) of the Amendment Act should be construed as directory and not mandatory. As is evident from a plain reading of the section quoted above, the victim must be served with notice of the bail application and must be provided an opportunity to be heard and advance argument. When a statute specifically

provides a right to the victim/dependent to be heard at any proceedings in respect of bail, and if the court fails to provide such opportunity, then there is an inherent failure of justice. This procedure, in our opinion, cannot be bypassed. The non-compliance of the provision of Section 15-A(3) of the Amendment Act would render an order null and void. If Section 15-A(3) of the Amendment Act is to be construed as directory, then the very object and purpose with which such provision is enacted would got frustrated."

***

62. In such circumstances referred to above, we hold that Section 15-A(3) of the Amendment Act is mandatory and not directory."

(emphasis supplied)"

Referring the aforesaid observation, Learned P.P.

submitted that it was mandatory on the part of Learned CJM to

inform the victim which he failed to do so and as such the

order granting interim bail to the accused suffers from infirmity

and needs to be interfered with. Learned P.P. thereafter

referred another citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India

reported in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra alias

Monu & Anr. reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321, wherein in para

Nos.14.1, 26 and 27, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as

under:

"14.1. (A) Whether a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter "CrPC") is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an accused?

26. We, therefore, answer Question (A) in the affirmative, and hold that in the present case, the "victim" have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to the respondent-accused."

Referring the same, Learned P.P. also submitted

that since considering the nature and gravity of the offence, no

personal hearing was given to the victim, so, the victim has

been prejudiced. So, according to Learned P.P., the order of

Learned CJM needs to be interfered with.

Finally, Learned P.P. also drawn the attention of the

Court referring the order of Learned Additional Sessions Judge

that at the time of hearing, Learned Additional Sessions Judge

had given anxious hearing to both the parties and after

detailed hearing the order of Learned CJM was interfered with

and there was no infirmity to that order and as such there is no

scope to interfere with the order passed by Learned Additional

Sessions Judge and urged for dismissal of the petition filed by

the petitioner.

Learned P.P. further submitted that after release on

bail the petitioner-accused threatened the victim with dire

consequences and it was also informed that the petitioner-

accused tried to influence the witnesses and also threatened

the victim to withdraw the case paying some money failing

which her life would be at stake and in this regard, a G.D.

entry was made at R.K. Pur Women P.S., vide G.D. entry

No.26 dated 26.08.2025. So, finally, Learned P.P. drawn the

attention of the Court to uphold the order passed by Learned

Additional Sessions Judge.

06. In this case notice was served upon the victim. The

victim appeared through her Counsel and submitted one

affidavit narrating the prosecution story but in para No.6 it was

specifically stated that both the parties are trying to mitigate

the matter with the help of their near relatives.

07. In the case at hand the fact of the prosecution was

in short is that the petitioner-accused is a BSF personal having

been posted as Inspector Works in the Engineering Branch of

Frontier Headquarter BSF, Tripura, Campus-Shalbagan and in

the month of November, 2023 the petitioner-accused came in

contact with the victim and started conversation with each

other when the respondent represented him as a bachelor.

Ultimately, they developed friendly terms and started talking to

each other over phone which turned into a love relationship. In

the month of January, the respondent-accused met with the

complainant-victim in her native house at Belonia and

proposed to maintain living relation which she refused.

Thereafter, in the month of February 2024, the respondent-

accused took the victim to Kasba where he put Vermilion on

her forehead and made her believed that the victim is his wife

and convinced her to have relation with him and thereafter,

took her in a rented house at Banerjee Para and started

residing with her as husband and wife. In April 2024, the victim

came to know that the petitioner is already married having two

children and being asked the petitioner stated that he has got

no good relation with his wife and would divorce her. After that

in the month of November, 2024 the petitioner took the victim

in another rented house at Durjoynagar and started residing

therein as husband and wife. Even, thereafter, the petitioner

did not take any step to divorce his wife and that time the

victim could realized that she has been deceived by the

petitioner and later on, the petitioner refused to marry her and

also assaulted her for which she sustained injuries and

ultimately, on 20.07.2025 the petitioner-accused left her

company and since then he did not make any contact with the

victim. After that on 26.07.2025 the victim laid the complaint.

This is the sum and substance of the prosecution

case.

08. I have heard the parties at length and perused the

relevant prosecution papers and also the order passed by

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 which is

challenged before this Court. From the order of the Learned

Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that Learned Additional

Sessions Judge at the time of passing the order came to the

observation that the Learned CJM at the time of passing of

order came to the observation that Section 376 of IPC would

not attract in the case at hand during the nascent stage of

investigation which was/is not permissible in the eye of law.

Even in a case trial by the Court of Sessions, there is very least

scope on the part of the Magistrate to grant bail to a person

who is arrested for an offence exclusively triable by the Court

of Sessions. Even, Section 437 of Cr.P.C. put some restrictions

to the Magistrate to consider bail and in that case the

Magistrate has to specifically negate the existence of

reasonable ground for believing that such an accused is guilty

of an offence punishable with sentence of death or

imprisonment of life. Furthermore, powers of the Magistrate

while dealing with the application for grant of bail are regulated

by the punishment prescribed for the offence in which the bail

is sought. Generally speaking, if, punishment is prescribed for

imprisonment of life of death penalty and the offence is

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate has

no jurisdiction to grant bail unless the matter is covered by the

provision attached to the Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

09. Situated thus, it appears to this Court that there

was no infirmity to the order passed by Learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala regarding

cancellation of bail granted to the accused and furthermore,

Section 15 (A) (C) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 puts a restriction to a Court

to hear the victim which Learned CJM has failed to exercise at

the time of consideration of the bail application on the ground

that accused was S.C. In this regard, the Learned Court ought

to have called for the report from I.O. which he failed.

10. In view of the above, after hearing both the sides

and considering the materials on record, I do not find any

irregularity in the order passed by Learned Additional Sessions

Judge Court No.5 in regard to cancellation of bail granted to

the accused, vide order dated 21.11.2025 passed by Learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala

in connection with Criminal (Misc) 176 of 2025.

So, considering all, the application filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands cancelled. The order dated

21.11.2025 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Court No.5 is hereby upheld and affirmed. The petitioner-

accused is to surrender before the Court of Learned CJM, West

Tripura, Agartala on or before 06.03.2026. The interim order

dated 03.12.2025 passed by this Court thus stands vacated

accordingly. Further, it is ordered that since the victim in her

affidavit-in-opposition specifically stated that a talk of

compromise is going on amongst the rival parties, so, it will be

always open for the parties to approach for bail to the Court of

the Jurisdictional Magistrate narrating the present facts and

circumstances of the case and in that event, the Leaned

Jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider to dispose of the matter

in view of the factual aspects of the parties without being

biased by the order of this Court, so that the right of the

parties is not infringed.

Learned Standing Counsel for the complainant is

asked to take up the matter with the authority of the

department immediately.

Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court

along with a copy of this order. Also, a copy of this order be

supplied to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner for

information. Also, supply a copy of this order to I.O through

Learned P.P.

With this observation, this present petition stands

disposed of on contest.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed

of.
                                                            JUDGE




Purnita

AMRITA Digitally signed
       by AMRITA DEB

DEB    Date: 2026.02.26
       14:10:55 +05'30'
 