Tripura High Court
Sri Litan Saha And Another vs The State Of Tripura on 14 July, 2021
Author: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Bench: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A. B. No.27 of 2021
Sri Litan Saha and another.
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura.
............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
14/07/2021 [1] This bail application under Section 438 Cr. P.C was first considered on 04.06.2021 when after hearing the parties at length the following order was passed:
"[1] This is an application filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C hereunder) preferred by the accused applicants for granting pre arrest bail to them in West Agartala Women P.S case No. 40/2021 which has been registered under sections 498A, 323, 307 read with section 34 IPC. [2] The accused applicant Litan Saha is the husband of the complainant and co-accused applicant Smt. Manika Saha is her sisterin-law (husband's sister). [3] This case has been registered on the basis of the written Fir lodged by Smt. Beauti Saha at West Agartala Women P.S on 30.04.2021 alleging, inter alia, that her accused husband Litan Saha used to commit torture on her for dowry right from the beginning of their marital life. On 29.04.2021 the accused husband assaulted the complainant and tried to kill her by throttling. Their eleven years old daughter came forward and saved her mother.
[4] Mr. S. Rahaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accused husband sells vegetables and fruits in a market. They entered into matrimonial alliance about 13 years back and two children were born to them during this period. It is also submitted by Mr. Rahaman, learned counsel that the complainant wife never made any allegations against her husband in the past though according to her the accused husband is harassing her for the last 12 years. According to Mr. Rahaman, learned counsel, the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment. Therefore, arrest and detention of the accused should be prevented to save Page 2 of 5 the matrimonial relationship between the parties. For the other accused, it is submitted by Mr. Rahaman, learned counsel that she is the married sister of accused Litan Saha who lives in her matrimonial home and she does not have any role in the occurrence. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court for granting pre arrest bail to both the accused petitioners. [5] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. on the other hand argues that the investigating agency has by this time recorded the police statements of the material witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C whose statements have revealed that as a result of the continuing dispute between the husband and wife the accused tortured his wife and ousted her from her matrimonial home. According to learned P.P, release of the accused on bail at this stage is likely to spoil the investigation of the case.
[6] Considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the case diary as well as the materials placed before this court. [7] As stated above, the parties were married 13 years back. Two children are born to them during this period.
[8] In view of the nature of the dispute and the facts and circumstances presented before this court, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary in the given case. Therefore, in the event of arrest, the accused petitioners may go on bail on their furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer for an interim period till 23.06.2021 subject to the following conditions:
(i) That petitioner Litan Saha will appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.
(ii) He will not leave the state without prior permission of the investigating officer.
[9] Matter will be further listed on 23.06.2021. Return the case diary to Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P." [2] The matter was again heard on 23.06.2021 and the interim protection was extended in favour of the accused petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2021 which is as under:
"[1] This is an application filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C hereunder) preferred by the accused applicants for granting pre arrest bail to them in West Agartala Women P.S case No. 40/2021 which has been registered under sections 498A, 323, 307 read with section 34 IPC.
[2] The accused applicant is the husband of the complainant and co accused Manika Saha is his sister.Page 3 of 5
[3] The case was registered on the basis of written FIR lodged by Smt. Beauti Saha at West Agartala Women P.S on 30.04.2021 alleging, inter alia, that her accused husband Litan Saha used to commit torture on her for dowry right from the beginning of their marital life. On 29.04.2021 her accused husband assaulted her and tried to kill her by throttling. Their eleven years old daughter came forward and saved her mother. [4] The matter was first heard on 21.05.2021 and it was decided that the petition would be considered after perusal of the case diary. Case diary was produced on 04.06.2021 when the following order was passed granting interim bail to the accused petitioner:
"[4] Mr. S. Rahaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accused husband sells vegetables and fruits in a market. They entered into matrimonial alliance about 13 years back and two children were born to them during this period. It is also submitted by Mr. Rahaman, learned counsel that the complainant wife never made any allegations against her husband in the past though according to her the accused husband is harassing her for the last 12 years. According to Mr. Rahaman, learned counsel, the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment. Therefore, arrest and detention of the accused should be prevented to save the matrimonial relationship between the parties. For the other accused, it is submitted by Mr. Rahaman, learned counsel that she is the married sister of accused Litan Saha who lives in her matrimonial home and she does not have any role in the occurrence. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court for granting pre arrest bail to both the accused petitioners.
[5] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. on the other hand argues that the investigating agency has by this time recorded the police statements of the material witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C whose statements have revealed that as a result of the continuing dispute between the husband and wife the accused tortured his wife and ousted her from her matrimonial home. According to learned P.P, release of the accused on bail at this stage is likely to spoil the investigation of the case.
[6] Considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the case diary as well as the materials placed before this court.
[7] As stated above, the parties were married 13 years back. Two children are born to them during this period.
[8] In view of the nature of the dispute and the facts and circumstances presented before this court, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary in the given case. Therefore, in the event of arrest, Page 4 of 5 the accused petitioners may go on bail on their furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer for an interim period till 23.06.2021 subject to the following conditions:
(i) That petitioner Litan Saha will appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.
(ii) He will not leave the state without prior permission of the investigating officer.
[9] Matter will be further listed on 23.06.2021. Return the case diary to Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P."
[5] Heard Mr. S. Rahaman, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner who submits that petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of interim bail which was granted by him by this court by order dated 04.06.2021. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court to confirm his bail on any condition whatsoever.
[6] Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. who fairly submits that petitioner has not misused the liberty granted to him under bail in any manner and he has also extended the fullest cooperation to the investigating agency.
[7] Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and having considered the materials placed before this court, I am of the view that the period of interim bail may be extended for a further period of three weeks on the same terms and conditions. [8] A copy of the order be given to the investigating officer. Investigating officer will submit status report on the next day. List the matter on 14.07.2021." [3] Heard Mr. Bhaskar Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.
[4] It is submitted by Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel that accused petitioner has been suffering from acute illness as a result of which counsel could not receive any instruction from the accused petitioner. Mr. Deb, however, urges the Court to confirm the bail of the petitioner as he is taking care of his wife and regularly remitting money to her for maintenance of herself and the children. Page 5 of 5 [5] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that interim protection may be extended in favour of the accused petitioner since he has not misused his liberty as yet. [6] Having considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties and the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to extend the interim protection to the accused for further period of one month. The matter will be further listed on 18.08.2021. It appears from the record that a condition was imposed under the order dated 04.06.2021 that accused would not leave his station without the prior permission of the Investigating Officer. This condition is lifted. The other condition will remain in force.
Inform the investigating officer.
JUDGE Dipankar