[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Shri Dipak Das vs The State Of Tripura Represented By ... on 16 January, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.M.App.No.01 of 2025
Shri Dipak Das,
S/O Late Krishna Das,
Resident of S. K. Para, Kulai,
P.S.- Ambassa, District- Dhalai.
....Appellant(s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura represented by Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex,
Secretariat Buildings, Kunjaban,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, Tripura West- 799010.
2. District Magistrate & Collector,
D. M. Complex, Jawaharnagar, Ambassa,
Dhalai Tripura- 799289.
3. Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Dhalai District, Office of Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Ganda Twisa, Dhalai, Tripura- 799284.
.......Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Agniva Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date of Hearing : 08.01.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 16.01.2026
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Chakraborty
appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant and also heard
Learned Additional P.P., Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf of the
State-respondent.
02. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging
the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Learned Special Judge,
NDPS, Dhalai District Ambassa in connection with case No.ABS
GRPS 10 of 2023(Special NDPS 04 of 2024) and connecting
orders dated 28.11.2023, 05.01.2024, 02.01.2024,
01.03.2024, 05.04.2024, 26.07.2024, 29.08.2024,
03.10.2024, 27.11.2024, 04.12.2024, 20.02.2025 &
20.03.2025 passed in connection with case No.Crl.Misc.65 of
2023 under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. arising out of the said ABS
PS case No.ABS GRPS 10 of 2023(NDPS) passed by Learned
Sessions Judge, Dhalai District, Ambassa.
03. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
appellant, Mr. A. Chakraborty drawn the attention of this Court
that in pursuance of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by
Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Ambassa in connection with
2023 GRP 10 (NDPS), the accused persons namely, Mithu
Kumar, Amit Kumar, Nikhil Kumar & Bibhishan Kumar were
granted interim bail by the Learned Special Judge and
accordingly, on 13.10.2023 the present petitioner-appellant
stood as bailor/surety on behalf of the said accused persons for
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each and the accused persons
were supposed to appear before the Court of Learned Special
Judge, NDPS, Ambassa on 24.11.2023 but on that day the
accused persons did not surrender, as a result of which
Learned Special Judge issued warrant of arrest against all the
accused persons and passed an order for drawing up of
separate proceeding under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. against the
petitioner-appellant and accordingly, a separate proceeding
was drawn up and in the separate proceeding under Section
446 of Cr.P.C., Learned Sessions Judge issued Distress warrant
of arrest against the present petitioner-appellant and
communicated the same to the Collector of the District and in
pursuance of the order of the Court, the SDM, Ambassa
initiated recovery proceeding under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. and
accordingly, the property of the present appellant was attached
and order was passed for recovery of the defaulted amount by
selling the immovable property belonging to the appellant. It is
further submitted that auction was conducted by SDM,
Ambassa and after that as per order dated 28.03.2025, the
sale which was confirmed in auction was stayed by an order of
this Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that by this time
one of the accused has been expired and other accused
persons were surrendered before the Court and they are
released on fresh bail and now the case is pending for disposal
before the Court of Learned Special Judge. So, finally Learned
Counsel submitted that considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the proceeding under Section 446 of
Cr.P.C. drawn up against the petitioner-appellant may be
closed.
04. On the other hand, Learned Additional P.P., Mr. R.
Saha appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submitted
that although interim bail was granted to the accused persons
till 24.11.2023 but on the day, the present petitioner-
appellant failed to produce the accused persons before the
Court nor took any step. So, Learned Trial Court rightly drawn
up proceeding against the surety and even in the proceeding
drawn up under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. inspite of receipt of
notice, no step was taken by the surety, i.e. the present
petitioner-appellant. So, it shows that his conduct was not at
all satisfactory and he stood as a bailor for the accused persons
in a case of heinous offence and urged for dismissal of this
appeal.
05. Initially, the present appellant challenging the
proceeding under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. preferred one Revision
petition before this Court but later on after hearing both the
sides, the writ petition was converted in to appeal under
Section 449 of Cr.P.C. The present petitioner-appellant stood
as bailor for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each for four accused
persons, thus, he defaulted in paying forfeited bail amount of
Rs.4,00,000/-. However, in the meantime, one of the accused
reportedly has been expired namely, Bibhisan Kumar and other
accused persons are available before the Court namely, Mithu
Kumar, Amit Kumar and Nikhil Kumar. From the records of the
Learned Trial Court, further, it appears that as per order of the
Learned Trial Court the property of the present petitioner-
appellant was attached and put under auction and one
purchaser has deposited the earnest money and SDM,
Ambassa, Dhalai, accepted the bid of one Biplab Dey and asked
to deposit a sum of Rs.4,05,000/-towards the sale of the
auction property belonging to the present petitioner-appellant
and at that time on the approach of the appellant, as per order
of the Court, further proceeding regarding auction and sale was
stayed. It is not disputed that the present appellant stood as
bailor for all the accused persons by executing surety bond on
13.10.2023 but he failed to produce the accused persons
before the Learned Trial Court on 24.11.2023 nor submitted
any prayer before the Court on that day. Even inspite of receipt
of notice in the proceeding drawn up under Section 446 of
Cr.P.C., he did not take any step before the Court nor
produced the accused person before the Court for which the
Learned Trial Court rightly drawn up proceeding against him
under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The conduct of the appellant was
not at all satisfactory. Thus, he has defaulted in discharging his
legal duties. However, at the time of hearing, Learned Counsel
for the petitioner-appellant submitted that no notice was
served upon him but in this regard no satisfactory reply could
be offered by Learned Counsel by showing any documentary
evidence on record that no notice was served upon him and
excepting this plea, Learned Counsel could not take any other
plea to substantiate his claim against the proceeding drawn up
by the Learned Trial Court. He also submitted that the present
petitioner-appellant is a very poor person suffering from
physical disability and in support of his contention one
certificate was submitted by him issued by the District
Disability Board but simply on the basis of the plea taken by
the appellant that he is suffering from disability cannot be a
ground for exonerate him from the liability of payment of
forfeited bail bond. From the records of the Learned Trial
Court, it is very much clear that the petitioner-appellant failed
to produce the accused persons before the Court on the date
fixed, even later on also he failed to produce the accused
persons before the Court for which the Court had to issue
warrant of arrest against all the accused persons. Even inspite
of receipt of notice he did not take any step before the Learned
Trial Court to exonerate him from the liability of the bail bond
nor any petition was filed on his behalf to substantiate the
Court that he was not in a position to produce the accused
persons before the Court. So, simply on the ground that he is
suffering from disability and he is a person having no sufficient
means cannot be a sole ground for discharging him from the
liability of the bail bonds for which he stood as bailor. At the
same time, it is also true that if the property which has been
attached is transferred to the auction purchaser, in that case
he will be landless and it will be a severe hardship for the
present petitioner-appellant since by this time the accused
persons who are alive were produced/surrendered before the
Learned Trial Court and were released on fresh bail bond. So,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears
to this Court that the surety of this case has defaulted in
discharging his legal obligation to produce the accused persons
for whom he stood as bailor before the Learned Trial Court on
the date fixed nor he took any sincere steps to draw the
attention of the Court for taking lenient view in this regard.
06. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the present
petitioner-appellant and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the petitioner-
appellant is hereby dismissed on contest being devoid of merit.
The petitioner-appellant is asked to deposit forfeited bail
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Learned
Trial Court within a period of one month from the date of
passing of this order and the balance amount is hereby
remitted under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. In the event of
deposit of forfeited bail amount of Rs.1,50,000/- the same will
be deposited to the treasury by challan by the Learned Trial
Court and the proceeding drawn up against this surety
regarding this case shall be stand as closed. Further, it is also
ordered that after receipt of the money, Learned Trial Court
shall ask SDM, Ambassa to close the proceeding drawn up
against the appellant-surety and to refund the earnest money
to the auction purchaser namely, Sri Biblap Dey, S/o Nepal
Chandra Dey, Nabagram (Basudeb Para), Kulai, Dhalai District
and the property belonging to the petitioner-appellant which
was attached be released in this favour along with the
possession, if so requires.
With this observation, this appeal stands disposed of
on contest.
A copy of this judgment/order be supplied to
Learned Counsel for the appellant for information and
compliance. A copy of this judgment/order be communicated to
Learned Trial Court for information and compliance and also a
copy be supplied to SDM, Ambassa for information.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
PURNITA DEB Digitally signed by PURNITA DEB
Date: 2026.01.16 16:20:57 +05'30'
Purnita
