Pinki Saha Roy vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 21 Tri

Tripura High Court

Pinki Saha Roy vs The State Of Tripura on 8 January, 2026

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                     AGARTALA

                                   B.A. No.114 of 2025

       Pinki Saha Roy,
       D/O- Gopal Bihari Saha Roy, W/O- Sri Raju
       Barman, R/O- Buddhamandir, Opposite of Bazaar
       India Shopping Mall, P.O. Ujan Abhoynagar, P.S.
       NCC, District- West Tripura, PIN-799005
                                                                  ...... Petitioner (s)
       For and on behalf of :

       Raju Barman
       S/O- Late Madan Barman, R/O- Ushabazar,
       Chinaihani, P.S. Airport, District- West Tripura,
       PIN-799009
                                                     ........ Accused applicant (s)

                                           Versus
       The State of Tripura
                                                                ...... Respondent (s)

For the Petitioner/accused applicant (s) : Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Adv.

Mr. E. Darlong, Adv.

Mr. S. Bal, Adv.

Mr. S. H. Roy, Adv.

For the Respondent (s)                     :     Mr. Sankar Lodh, Special PP
                                                 Mr. S. Debnath, Adv.

Date of hearing                            :     15.12.2025
Date of delivery of                        :     08.01.2026
Judgment & order
                                                  YES    NO
Whether fit for reporting                  :             √




                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

                                 JUDGMENT & ORDER

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been resorted to by

Smt. Pinki Saha Roy with a prayer for release of her husband, Sri Raju Barman, the

accused applicant, on bail in connection with Airport P.S. Case No.37 of 2024,

registered under Sections 302/120B of Indian Penal Code [in short, the IPC], Section

27 of the Arms Act and with added Sections 201/34 of the IPC. The accused was

arrested on 10.07.2024 at Naamghar, Chatabari, P.S. Boko, Kamrup, Assam and

since then, he is in custody for more than 496 days.

[2] On 30.04.2024, at around 2025 hours, the informant, Sri Srikanta Guha,

SI of Airport P.S. received a telephonic information that a person had been shot at

Hatipara under Airport P.S. The police rushed to the spot and found one dead body

lying on the side of the road with bullet injuries. Said person was taken to ILS

Hospital, Agartala, wherein the Doctor declared him dead and the body was

identified to be of Durga Prasanna Deb @ Viki, the then Secretary of Bharat Ratna

Club. During local inquiry, it was learned by the police authority that the said

incident occurred at about 2010 hours, when the deceased was sitting in a vehicle

bearing registration No.TR-06-A-0745 and the said vehicle was parked at Hatipara in

front of one medicine shop.

[3] From the near relatives of the deceased, it also revealed that the present

accused, Sri Raju Barman along with Sri Rakesh Barman, Sri Debabrata Barman, Sri

Biman Das, Sri Pradyut Dhar Chowdhury and some others, entered into a some

criminal conspiracy and were involved in the murder of the deceased. Said police

officer accordingly lodged a suo-moto FIR against them.

[4] The police authority accordingly registered the above said case and

started the investigation.

[5] Meanwhile, the wife of the deceased filed another written FIR against

said Sri Raju Barman and 6[six] others alleging that on 30.04.2024, the deceased

informed her over phone that he had gone to the house of Sri Biman Das at

Gandhigram on his call and that he had also informed the said fact to one of their

neighbours, namely Sri Ajoy Sarkar. Thereafter, at around 8.24 pm in the night, one

person informed the elder brother of the deceased that the deceased was found lying

with bleeding injuries at Shalbagan BSF para and he was then taken to ILS hospital

wherein he was declared as dead. There was sign of bullet injuries on his forehead

and chest. It was further alleged that her husband had told her that for last few days,

the accused persons were giving threat to kill him as he had protested against their

antisocial activities. The said FIR was tagged with the investigation of this case.

[6] During the investigation, the police authority arrested two female

accused persons, namely Smt. Susmita Sarkar and her mother, Smt. Uma Sarkar.

Their confessional statements were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate after

observing all codal formalities. Smt. Susmita Sarkar stated before the Magistrate that

after Durga Puja celebrations, one day her younger sister went to Ushabazar for

purchasing some medicines and at that time, the deceased came near to her with a

vehicle and ultimately, took her to a tea garden and uttered certain filthy comments

regarding her breasts and when she told the deceased that her mobile location was on,

out of fear, he dropped her again at Ushabazar area. The deceased also subsequently

pursued her said younger sister for a physical relationship over phone. For that

reason, both Susmita and her said younger sister exchanged their SIM cards with

each other. The deceased then started blackmailing Susmita by giving the allurement

of providing a job to her in lieu of physical relationship with him. Then Raju Barman

called her over phone and asked her about Viki's activities. When Susmita informed

the matter to Raju Barman, [the accused], he told her that he would save her from the

clutch of the deceased if she would listen to him. As per asking of Viki, one day she

alongwith her mother went to Natunnagar via Patunagar and Salbagan market, near

medicine shop and then Raju Barman asked her to go in front of Vishaa Beauty

Parlour and then to Radhanagar by wearing mask and by covering face. At

Radhanagar, Raju Barman received them and took them to his house. In his house,

Raju Barman told them that the deceased should be convinced about doing something

with her [Susmita] and he also gave Rs.25,000/- to them with further assurance that

he would bear all the expenses of her marriage. Raju Barman also told her to accept

the deceased's proposal and that he would protect her but she could not imagine that

such type of incident would occur. She agreed with the proposal of Raju Barman as

he promised to take care of her and as per his instruction, she fixed a date with the

deceased and informed the same to Raju Barman.

[7] As per plan, in the evening, she reached in front of said Vishaa Beauty

Parlour and the deceased told her that within 10 minutes, he would arrive there. She,

in turn, informed the said fact to Raju Barman and her mother. Her mother also came

to the spot. She found Sri Birchakra Ghosh, an ex-member of said Bharat Ratna Club

roaming in that area and after a few minutes, 3[three] persons, one of whom was Sri

Akash Kar arrived there. The deceased also meanwhile arrived there in his vehicle

and asked her to board in his vehicle but she told him that she had to purchase some

medicines. Then the deceased through his driver, paid Rs.2,000/- to her. She then

again informed the matter to Raju Barman while proceeding towards said medicine

shop. The said vehicle of Viki was parked at that time in between said medicine

shop and the beauty parlour. She then heard a sound of something and at that Raju

Barman who did not come to the spot over phone told her to leave the said place. She

did not see anything, but she was nervous. Her mother then took her with her. On the

same night, Raju Barman called her mother again over phone and told her to destroy

and burn the clothes of Susmita and to hide her mobile handset under the ground and

thereafter, he never called her. She was all along innocent. The mother of Susmita

however in her confessional statement stated that on the day when they visited the

house of Raju Barman, prior to such visit, they spotted the medicine shop as per

instruction of Raju Barman.

[8] The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of many other

witnesses, collected the post-mortem report and got the viscera of the deceased

examined in the forensic laboratory. One pistol was recovered at the instance of the

brother of said Raju Barman, namely, Rakesh Barman from Durgabari cremation

ground area and the said firearm was examined by the arms expert.

[9] Finally, on 27.07.2024, the investigating officer submitted the charge-

sheet against Sri Raju Barman and Sri Sani Saha Roy under Sections 302, 120B/34 of

the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and also against Sri Sandip Kar @ Akash, Sri

Rakesh Barman, under similar Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27

of the Arms Act. Further, the charge-sheet was submitted against Sri Pradyut Dhar

Chowdhury, Sri Birchakra Ghosh, Smt. Susmita Sarkar and her mother Smt. Uma

Sarkar under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He

also prayed for custodial trial of the said accused persons. It was further noted by the

investigating officer in the charge-sheet that the investigation was continuing for

identification and to establish the role and complicity of other associates. It was also

stated that the FSL report and other reports in support of the evidence should also be

submitted in the Court immediately on receipt of the same through a supplementary

charge-sheet. He also submitted the supplementary charge-sheet on 22.04.2025 by

submitting certain expert report(s) with certified copies of the CDR and one witness

list, containing the names of some experts and officials of Bharati Airtel Ltd.,

Vodafone and Idea Ltd. to prove those documents.

[10] Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the

accused applicant submits that already 4[four] accused persons were granted bail in

this case. Out of them, 2[two] women accused persons, namely Uma Sarkar and

Susmita Sarkar were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge and accused, Sri

Birchakra Ghosh was granted bail by this High Court and another accused, Sri Sani

Saha Roy was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel

prays for bail of the present accused on the ground of parity submitting further that

more than one year he is in custody. Learned senior counsel also submits that both

Susmita and her mother gave confessional statements before the Judicial Magistrate

but despite the same, the prosecution did not oppose their bail applications and

ultimately, they were granted bail.

[11] Learned senior counsel also raises the issue that the partial charge-sheet

was submitted within the period of 90 days of detention of the accused applicant just

to frustrate his claim for default bail and the final charge-sheet was submitted only

beyond the period of 90 days of detention. Learned senior counsel however submits

that he is not pressing for any default bail.

[12] Learned senior counsel further submits that the judicial confessions of

two women accused persons were exculpatory in nature and based on their

statements, the present accused was booked in this case. According to learned senior

counsel, those exculpatory statements have no evidential value. On that aspect, he

relies on 2[two] decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Kashmira Singh vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 1 SCC 275, the followings were observed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the use of confessional statement of co-accused.

11. Translating these observations into concrete terms they come to this. The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept.

[13] In Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh vs. Republic of India,

(2011) 2 SCC 490, the followings were observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph no.63-:

"63) In State of Maharashtra vs. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269, the same principles had been reiterated which read as under:-

"19. We have considered the above reasons and the arguments addressed for and against them. We have realised that those reasons are ex facie fragile. Even otherwise, a Magistrate who proposed to record the confession has to ensure that the confession is free from police interference. Even if he was produced from police custody, the Magistrate was not to record the confession until the lapse of such time, as he thinks necessary to extricate his mind completely from fear of the police to have the confession in his own way by telling the Magistrate the true facts.

*** *** ***

25. We may make it clear that in Kashmira Singh , AIR 1952 SC 159, this Court has rendered the ratio that confession cannot be made the foundation of conviction in the context of considering the utility of that confession as against a co-accused in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Hence the observations in that decision cannot be misapplied to cases in which confession is considered as against its maker. The legal position concerning confession vis-a-vis the confessor himself has been well-nigh settled by this Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, as under:

"In law it is always open to the court to convict an accused on his confession itself though he has retracted it at a later stage. Nevertheless usually courts require some corroboration to the confessional statement before convicting an accused person on such a statement. What amount of corroboration would be necessary in such a case would always be a question of fact to be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case."

This has been followed by this Court in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609."

[14] Regarding parity of bail, learned senior counsel also relies on other

2[two] decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Abhishek Tripathi

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 18 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted

bail to said accused as other co-accused persons against whom also similar

allegations were raised, were released on bail. In the case of Ramesh Bhavan

Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and another, (2021) 6 SCC

230, it was held that parity while granting bail must focus upon role of the accused.

Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a

similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on

the basis of party has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role

attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims are

of utmost importance.

[15] According to learned senior counsel, two women accused persons, who

called the deceased to come to the place of occurrence, were granted bail and

furthermore, two other accused persons, namely Sani Saha Roy and Birchakra Ghosh,

who were also present in the scene of crime, were also granted bail. Therefore, there

is no reason for denial of bail to the present accused. Only allegation against him,

submits Ld. Sr. Counsel, is that a meeting was held in his house with some of the co-

accused and he coordinated the entire crime. Learned senior counsel also contends

that there are total 94[ninety four] witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and therefore, it

will take a long time to complete the trial.

[16] The next point as raised by learned senior counsel is that the ground of

arrest was not informed to the present accused and his criminal antecedence, if any,

have no relevance in this matter while considering this bail application. On that

aspect, he relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648.

The said case was an appeal against granting bail of two accused persons by the High

Court and in that contexts, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was no wrong

or improper exercise on the part of the High Court in granting bail. It was also

observed in the background of the said case that the offence alleged no doubt was

grave and serious in nature and there were several criminal cases pending against the

accused but those factors by themselves could not be the basis for refusal of prayer of

bail. No ex-facie error was found in the High Court's order as it granted the bail to

one of the accused namely, Vikram Singh upon considering the relevant materials.

[17] Regarding abscondance of the accused persons, learned senior counsel

also relies on further two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of SK.

Yusuf vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 11 SCC 754, while hearing an appeal from

the order of the High Court in dismissing the appeal against conviction, Hon'ble

Supreme Court at Paragraph No.31 observed that in case a person was absconding

after commission of offence of which he might not even be the author, such a

circumstance alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it

would go against the doctrine of innocence. It was further observed that it was quite

possible that he might be running away merely on being suspected, out of fear of

police arrest and harassment.

[18] In this regard, the second decision as relied on by learned senior

counsel is the decision of the case of Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of

Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439. In this case also, while deciding an appeal

against conviction of the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

abscondance by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension

of being apprehended by the police, cannot be said to be unnatural. Thus, mere

abscondance by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining

untraceable for a period of six days itself cannot establish his guilt. Absconding by

itself is not conclusive proof of either of guilt or of a guilty conscience.

[19] On the other hand, Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned Special PP appearing for

the State, submits that in the instant case, initially warrant was issued against the

present accused person, and thereafter, proclamation was also issued and then only he

was arrested and therefore, the arrest on the basis of such warrant itself was the

ground of arrest and there was no further necessity to inform him separately of any

other ground of arrest. Learned Special PP also submits that the accused was the

mastermind of the entire crime, and under his instruction, planning and design, the

alleged crime was committed by the others. He was monitoring the entire

commission of the crime through his mobile phone. He even absconded just after the

occurrence, for which a search had to be conducted by unlocking his house. Learned

Special PP further submits that he is a habitual offender with a long criminal history

and 07 nos. of cases were/are pending against him relating to commission of heinous

offences, including attempt to murder, kidnapping for ransom, dacoity and extortion

and he poses a threat to the society.

[20] Regarding the allegation of submitting a partial charge-sheet, Mr.

Lodh, learned Special PP submits that the first charge-sheet which was submitted

was not at all a part charge-sheet in strict sense, rather after collecting sufficient

materials against the accused persons, said charge-sheet was filed and the

supplementary charge-sheet was filed thereafter only for the purpose of submissions

of certain documents which could not be collected by the investigating officer earlier

when initially the charge-sheet was filed. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the

first charge-sheet was the final charge-sheet.

[21] In this regard, learned Special PP relies on a decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Amin vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation and others, (2015) 3 SCC 417, wherein reference was made to the

previous decision of 3-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in CBI vs.

R.S. Pai, (2002) 5 SCC 82, that normally, the investigating officer is required to

produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At the

same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional

documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not

producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge-

sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the

permission of the court. Considering the preliminary stage of prosecution and the

context in which the police officer is required to forward to the Magistrate all the

documents or the relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely,

the word "shall" used in sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as

directory. Normally, the documents gathered during the investigation upon which the

prosecution wants to rely are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate, but if there

is some omission, it would not mean that the remaining documents cannot be

produced subsequently. It was also further observed that if further investigation is not

precluded, then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce

additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation

and the word "shall" used in sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but

as directory.

[22] Learned Special PP also relies on the order dated 12.05.2023 in the

case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Manpreet Singh Talwar [Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) No.5724 of 2023], wherein 3-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed that in continuation of the earlier interim order dated 1st May, 2023, it

was clarified that the order shall not preclude any trial court or, as the case may be,

High Court from considering an application for the grant of default bail under

Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 independent of and without

relying on the judgment dated 26th April, 2023 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.60 of

2023. The said judgment relates to the case of Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India

and others, (2024) 12 SCC 116, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that question of resorting to a supplementary charge-sheet u/s 173(8) of the

Cr.PC only arises after the main charge-sheet has been filed, and as such, a

supplementary charge-sheet, wherein it is explicitly stated that the investigation is

still pending, cannot under any circumstance, be used to scuttle the right of default

bail, for, then the entire purpose of default bail would be defeated, and the filing of a

charge-sheet or a supplementary charge-sheet would become a mere formality, and a

tool, to ensure that the right of default bail is scuttled.

[23] Regarding bail on the ground of parity, learned Special PP relies on one

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadev Meena vs. Praveen

Rathore and another, (2021) 17 SCC 788, wherein referring to another decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai

Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, it was observed that while granting bail, the

High Court must focus on the role of the accused in deciding the aspect of parity.

[24] The said case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (supra) was also referred in

another recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagar vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2584, as relied on by Mr.

Lodh, learned Special PP. In the said case also, observation of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court was that while considering the bail on the ground of parity, focus must be on

the role of the accused and could not be utilised solely because another accused was

granted bail in connection with the same offence.

[25] Learned Special PP submits that it has come out from the investigation

that during the period from 01.03.2024 to 30.04.2024, the accused had conversation

with co-accused, Sri Pradyut Dhar Chowdhury about 191 times over phone and such

CDR was also submitted along with the charge-sheet and even the accused has

destroyed the digital evidence. According to learned Special PP, if he is released on

bail, again he will engage himself in destroying the evidence in such a sensitive case

causing serious prejudice to the trial. Learned Special PP also submits that the High

Court rejected the bail application of co-accused, Sri Pradyut Dhar Chowdhury on

the ground that he was connected with the present accused over phone for such a long

period continuously.

[26] Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, however in reply submits

that mere talking over telephone will not give rise to any conclusion of complicity of

the accused in the alleged crime. According to him, another accused, Birchakra

Ghosh was also absconded but he was granted bail. When the wife of the deceased,

learned senior counsel submits, lodged the FIR mentioning the names of several

persons of that area as accused, all of them absconded, moreover, the charge-sheet

contains no allegation of any sort of extortion or demanding money by the accused

person from any other person and therefore, such plea that he was previously

engaged in extortion of money is quite irrelevant.

[27] This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and also the

materials placed by the investigating agency.

[28] So far the plea that the ground of arrest was not communicated to the

accused, is concerned, it is a fact that he was arrested on the basis of warrant issued

by the Magistrate as he was an absconder since long and the police somehow traced

him in the neighbouring state of Assam. As per the observations made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, if a person is arrested on a warrant,

the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over

to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed

of the grounds of arrest. In the case in hand, there is no such plea from the side of

accused that he was not made known that he was arrested under a warrant of arrest.

In view of above, such plea as raised on behalf of the accused, is not accepted.

[29] So far the second issue as raised that a partial charge-sheet was

submitted in a half-done manner within 90 days from the date of detention of the

accused just to frustrate his right to claim of default bail, already, it is discussed

earlier in paragraph no.8 that the charge-sheet was submitted within 90 days with

sufficient particulars as required under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C and through the

subsequent charge-sheet supplementary in nature, some reports as were received by

the investigating officer later on, were submitted with list of names of witnesses

through whom said documents were to be proved. Therefore, such plea is also not

convincing.

[30] There are prima-facie materials that Sri Raju Barman, Sri Rakesh

Barman, Sri Pradyut Dhar Chowdhury and others would regulate the function of

Bharat Ratna Sangha Club, Ushabazar and they would collect commission money

from the contractors of CPWD, office of which is located in the same area and the

contractors had to give 3% to 4% of price of the work to them. Sri Raju Barman

would lead the team to extort such money. There are also prima-facie materials that

due to change in the portfolios of Bharat Ratna Club in the month of February, 2024,

said Raju Barman no longer remained as Joint Secretary of the said club, whereas the

deceased became the Secretary of the same, for which the accused and his companion

lost the opportunity to collect such commission money from the contractors. This

way enmity grew up between them.

[31] From the confessional statement of Smt. Susmita Sarkar made before

the Judicial Magistrate, it appears that Raju Barman gave her Rs.25,000/- when as

per asking of Raju Barman, she went to his house with her mother. There, Raju

Barman proposed her to fix a date with the deceased to meet with him. Thereafter,

she informed the matter to Sri Raju Barman and as per plan, she reached to the spot

and the deceased also arrived there and the incident occurred. The evidential value of

such confession will be decided during trial.

[32] There are also prima-facie materials that prior to the alleged incident,

Raju Barman used to give threat to the deceased and even he and his associates tried

to restrain the deceased from being the Secretary of the said club. Prima-facie

materials are also there that Raju Barman and his associates had also directly

threatened the deceased to kill him and that after the incident, the hard disk of CCTV

camera of the house of Raju Barman was changed for the purpose of hiding the fact

of visit of said Susmita Sarkar and her mother in his house. The technician who

removed the said hard disk from the house of Raju Barman also in his statement

before investigating officer and the Magistrate stated that Mr. Kar Bhowmik had

asked him to repair the CCTV of his house and also to change the CCTV hard disk of

his client. Thereafter, he met with accused, Sunny Saha Roy and finally, changed the

hard disk of CCTV set up in a double storied house, situated at Radhanagar. As per

the statements of the domestic helper of house of Raju Barman, Sunny Saha Roy

went to the house of Raju Barman with two persons, unlocked the door and did

something secretly there. As per the investigating officer, during search, they found

the DVR attached to the CC camera of the house of Raju Barman was found to have

been replaced.

[33] Court is of the prima-facie view that such attempt of destruction of

evidence at the instance of the accused is a matter of grave concern in such a

sensational and pre-planned murder case. The antecedents of Sri Raju Barman are

also not good and earlier 7[seven] criminal cases against him were either pending or

disposed of, though according to learned senior counsel, in some cases he was

already acquitted. When there are prima-facie evidences of his habit in giving threats

to others and attempt of destruction of evidence by him, such circumstance, does not

lend the assurance that if he released on bail, he will not try to influence or terrorise

any witness of the case or will not try to destroy the evidences further.

[34] In respect of the relevant parameters for granting bail, Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem and another, AIR 2024 SC 2885,

as relied on by learned Special PP, laid down the followings:

"26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. (Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P and another, (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alia Pappu Yadav and Anoher (supra); Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another (supra)."

In said case, three accused persons were in the custody for more than two years and

in that context, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that they were in custody for less than

three years in a serious offence like double murder and ultimately, cancelled their

bail. The relevant paragraph no.33 containing such observations is also reproduced

hereunder:

"33. Furthermore and most importantly, the High Court has overlooked the period of custody of the respondents-accused for such a grave offence alleged to have been committed by them. As per the submission made by learned counsel for the State of UP, before being released on bail, the accused- Waseem had undergone custody for a period of about two years four months, the accused-Nazim for a period of two years eight months, the accused-Aslam for a period of about two years nine months and the accused Abubakar, for a period of two years ten months. In other words, all the accused-respondents have remained in custody for less than three years for such a serious offence of a double murder for which they have been charged."

[35] So far the claim of bail on the ground of parity by the accused applicant

is concerned, the case of Sri Raju Barman stands on a different footing then other

accused persons. Two women accused persons were released on bail by the learned

Sessions Judge as the prosecution did not oppose their bail on the ground that they

had cooperated with the investigation and had given confessional statements before

the Judicial Magistrate. Accused, Sri Birchakra Ghosh was granted bail by the High

Court only on the ground that he was not an FIR named accused and he was in jail

for a considerable period. Accused, Sri Sani Saha Roy was granted bail by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the main allegation of firing was assigned

to Sri Sandip Sarkar @ Akash and as per the evidence, he was simply present at the

site of the incident.

[36] As per the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. (2025) SCC OnLine 1702, at

paragraph No.20.4 that mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible

right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself,

outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during

investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. Thus, lengthy list of

witnesses in the charge-sheet cannot be a ground for releasing the accused on bail.

[37] Considering all these aspects, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to

the accused, Sri Raju Barman. Accordingly, the same is rejected at this stage.

However, observations made hereinabove will not have any bearing during trial, for,

same is done for limited purpose of deciding the bail application.

Reconsign the trial Court's records with a copy of this order.

Returned the case diary along with a copy of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

JUDGE SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH Date: 2026.01.08 17:47:17 +05'30' Sujay