Tripura High Court
Sri Parimal Roy vs The State Of Tripura on 19 March, 2021
Author: S.G.Chattopadhyay
Bench: S.G.Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB 13 of 2021
1.Sri Parimal Roy, son of Lt. Niranjan Roy, Agartala, Ward No. 31,
Samsundar Para, Near Loaknath Chowmohni, P.O. East Pratap garh,
P.S. East Agartala, Jogendra Nagar, District-West Tripura.
2.Sri Nirmal Roy, son of Lt. Niranjan Roy, Agartala, Ward No. 31,
Samsundar Para, Near Loaknath Chowmohni, P.O.East Pratap garh,
P.S. East Agartala, Jogendra Nagar, District-West Tripura
-----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
represented by PP, High Court of Tripura, Agartala.
-----Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N.Majumder,Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.C.Sen, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Ghosh, Addl. PP
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
19.03.2021 [1] This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr.P.C.) has been filed for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioner in Salema P.S. Case No. 2020 SLM021 which has been registered under Section 302 IPC. The FIR was lodged by one Sumit Debbarma on 15.12.2020 at Salema police station who stated in his FIR that at about 12 noon on that day he came to know from his neighbors that a dead body of an unknown person was lying near the rubber Page 2 of 3 garden at Maichang Para. He went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. Then the FIR was lodged by him.
[2] Based on his FIR Salema P.S. case No. 2020 SLM 021 under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up. On the following day, Smt. Payel Saha, wife of the deceased lodged a written information to the officer in charge at Salema police station about the death of her husband. She suspected 02 local contractors namely Babul Bhowmik and Tapan Debnath and also the present petitioners. She stated that they might have been involved in the murder of her husband. It was alleged by her that the present petitioner who are the owners of the Manasha Electrical at Agartala had retrenched her husband who was an employee in their shop, on allegation of theft. [3] Now, apprehending arrest in the case, these 02 petitioners have approached this court for their release on pre arrest bail. [4] Heard Mr.B.N.Majumder, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.S.C.Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Addl. PP representing the State respondent. [5] According to Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned Sr. Advocate none of these petitioners were named in the FIR. Subsequently, wife of the deceased lodged a report at the police station involving the present Page 3 of 3 petitioners. According to Mr. Nandi Majumder, liberty of the petitioners cannot be curtailed on such fragile statement of the wife of the deceased.
[6] Opposing the bail application, Mr. S.Ghosh, learned Addl. PP. has submitted that in her statement the wife of the deceased has categorically involved the 02 petitioners in the murder of her husband which needs to be investigated and their release on bail at this stage would impair the investigation of the case.
[7] According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel of the petitioners, the statement of the wife of the deceased cannot be relied because such statement has no value in view of Section 162 Cr.P.C. [8] Having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that perusal of the case diary is necessary for consideration of the bail petition on merit. Therefore, the case may be listed on 24.03.2021.
Prosecution will produce the case diary on that day. List the matter on 24.03.2021.
JUDGE Saikat Sarma, P.A