[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Absana Prabin Begam vs The State Of Tripura Represented By Ld. ... on 18 February, 2026
-1-
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA 1 of 2026
BA No.26 of 2026
Smt. Absana Prabin Begam
Wife of Sri Salim Uddin Ahammed, Resident of Natun Kanchanpur
P.S. Kachudaram, State-Assam, District-Cachar, present Address-
121 BN BSF, HQ- Boagafa, as a Constable, Santirbazzer, South
Tripura District.
....Applicant(s)
On behalf of
Shri Salim Uddin Ahammed, son of Lt. Niaj Uddin Ahammed,
aged about 36 years, resident of Natun Kanchanpur, P.S.
Kachudaram, State - Assam, District - Cachar, Present address :
121 BN BSF, HQ: Bogafa, as a Constable, Santirbazar, South
Tripura, Tripura
..........Accused Person.
Versus
The State of Tripura represented by Ld. PP, High Court of Tripura,
Agartala.
....Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A.Chakraborty, Advocate.
Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta,PP.
=B=E=F=O=R=E=
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
=O=R=D=E=R=
18.02.2026
Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.
The petitioner has submitted one petition under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, for short), 2023
(corresponding to Section 482, Cr.P.C,1973) for quashing the order
dated 29.01.2026 passed in Spl.(NDPS) 2 of 2026 whereby Ld.
Special Judge, Gomati allowed the prayer for custody trial of the
applicant.
At the bottom of the said application it is prayed by the petitioner
to consider the matter of quashing of the said order dated 29.01.2026.
Ld. PP, however, opposes the said prayer submitting that there
was no petition for amendment of the original bail application for
incorporating such prayer therein, and also for incorporating the
provision of Section 528 of BNSS in the cause title of the bail
application and therefore, such petition is not maintainable. Ld. PP
also submits that the original bail application has been filed under sub-
section(1)(a) of Section 483 of BNSS and under such provision the
petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the order dated 29.01.2026
without adding Section 428 of BNSS in the cause title of the original
bail application.
In reply Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya submits that
there is no provision either in Cr. P.C. or in BNSS regarding
amendment of the petition and therefore, separate petition in the form
of interim application is filed under Section 428 of BNSS (erstwhile
Section 482 of Cr.P.C).
Considered the submissions of both sides.
The basic prayer of the petitioner is for granting the bail to him.
The custody trial prayer which is allowed by the Ld. Special Judge
also relates to rejection of his prayer of bail with further intention to
keep the accused in custody till trial is completed. In such a situation,
the petitioner is trying additionally to put the order dated 29.01.2026
passed by the Ld. Special Judge, granting prayer of the I.O for
custody trial, under challenge.
If the prayer of the bail is granted to the accused, automatically
as a consequence thereon, the said order of the Ld. Special Judge,
dated 29.01.2026, will be affected and therefore, such additional
prayer has been made by the petitioner.
The accused petitioner is already in custody seeking for bail and
therefore, considering that fact the technicalities, as raised from the
side of the prosecution, is being avoided to advance the substantial
cause of justice to the parties.
The petition as submitted under Section 528 of BNSS will be
treated as part of the original bail application.
It is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
MUNNA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
SAHA
Date: 2026.02.19 17:57:15 +05'30'
Saikat Sarma
