Tripura High Court
Mr. S. Lodh vs Mr. R. Datta on 25 June, 2021
Author: S.G. Chattopadhyay
Bench: S.G. Chattopadhyay
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B No. 37 of 2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 25/06/2021 [1] This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C in short) for granting pre arrest bail to the accused petitioner namely Mahesh Lal Yadav @ Raghu Gowala who is an FIR named accused in NCC PS case No. 2021NCC016 registered under sections 333, 148, 325, 307 & 427 of the Indian Penal code (IPC in short).
[2] Factual background of the case is as under:
Sri Sreekanta Rudra Paul, a Sub Inspector of Police of NCC police station lodged a written complaint with the officer in charge of New Capital Complex police station on 14.02.2021 alleging, inter alia, that while he was on mobile duty on the material day, he received an information to the effect that a collision between two vehicles took place on the Airport road near Gorkhabasti in which vehicle bearing registration No. TR 01 AC 1901 and vehicle bearing registration No. TR 07 B 0290 (KUV 100) were involved and the later vehicle got damaged. Page 2 of 4 Immediately, the informant rushed to the spot and while he was trying to remove the said vehicles from road to make way for movement of the vehicles on the road, the accused, owner of one of the offending vehicles bearing registration No. TR 01 AC 1901 along with his son Biki Gowala and other 15/20 persons of the area unlawfully assembled there and prevented the informant and his accompanying police staff from discharging their duty. During altercation with the police team, he assaulted the on duty police officers with lathi and iron road intending to kill them. From the said incident, two TSR personnel received grievous injuries who later received treatment from AGMC and GBP hospital at Agartala.
[3] Based on the said FIR, case under sections 333, 148, 325, 307 and 427 IPC was registered against the accused petitioner and the investigation of the case was taken up.
[4] Now, apprehending arrest in the case, the petitioner has approached this court by means of filing this petition seeking pre arrest bail.
[5] Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who submits that the essential ingredients of section 307 are not met in the case. Moreover, according to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, prosecution could not produce any material to show that the police personnel received any grievous hurt from the alleged assault and as Page 3 of 4 such the accused should not have been booked under section 333 IPC which provides that whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to deter a public servant from his duty can be prosecuted for offence punishable under section 333 IPC. According to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, at best section 332 IPC can be attracted which provides imprisonment for a term of three years only or with fine or with both. It is contended by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that in view of the materials available on record, no purpose of investigation will be served by the arrest and detention of the accused petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court to release the accused on pre arrest bail to save him from unnecessary arrest and harassment.
[6] Opposing the bail application, Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P submits that serious allegations are on record against the petitioner. According to Mr. Datta, learned P.P, the materials available on record support the allegation that the accused in a group of 15-20 persons attacked the on duty police officers with deadly weapons to prevent them from discharging their lawful duty and as such, release of the accused on pre arrest bail will send a wrong signal to the society. It is further argued by Mr. Datta, learned P.P that detention and interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of booking his associates of the crime.
Page 4 of 4[7] Perused the record available before the court. Perused the case diary and the statements of the witnesses so far recorded by the investigation agency under section 161 Cr.P.C. Considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties. [8] Serious allegations of assault of public servants with a view to deter them from the lawful discharge of their public duty have been brought against the petitioner. Undisputedly, two members of the police team received injuries from the said assault. Allegedly, the petitioner in a group of 15/20 persons of his locality surrounded the police team and assaulted them. The materials available on record has made out a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. Considering the submissions of learned counsel, materials available against the petitioner and all other relevant parameters for consideration of bail application, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case to extend the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C to the petitioner by providing custodial immunity to him.
[9] Resultantly, the bail petition stands rejected and the case is disposed of. Return the case diary to Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. JUDGE Rudradeep