Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Sri Sukanta Gupta on 19 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 TRI 279
Author: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Bench: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B A. No.19 of 2021
The State of Tripura, represented by Ld. Public Prosecutor.
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
Sri Sukanta Gupta,
Son of Sri Sukenduy Bikash Gupta,
R/o. Singerbill, P.O & P.S- Airport.
District- West Tripura.
............... Accused-Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.
For Respondent(s): Mr. N. G. Nandi, Advocate.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
19/05/2021 [1] By means of filing this petition under Sub-Section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C hereunder), the State has approached this court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala (Court No.2) vide impugned order dated 15.02.2021.
[2] After the petition was filed, notice was issued to the accused respondent who has recorded his appearance through his appointed advocate. Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State as well as Mr. N.G. Nandi, learned advocate representing the accused respondent. [3] Before I advert to the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the factual background of the case which is as under: Page 2 of 10
Sri Mrinal Kanti Deb, an engineer employed in a private company named, M/s. J. C. Enterprise of Silchar, Assam came to Agartala on 31.12.2020 by an Indigo flight from Guwahati to submit documents in the CPWD office at Usha Bazar after the tenders of his company were accepted by CPWD as the lowest bidder for two construction projects at Agartala. Having arrived at Agartala, he reported at Royal Guest House where he booked his accommodation and from there he met the concerned Executive Engineer at the CPWD office. As soon as he left the CPWD office after doing his work, the 3(three) FIR named accused along with another forcibly lifted him in a scorpio vehicle of white colour from near the CPWD office at Usha Bazar. Inside the vehicle, the accused persons, had snatched away his cell phone and all documents. After a while they stopped the vehicle at an unknown place. The accused persons then gave some instructions to someone over phone. Immediately thereafter, another scorpio of black colour, a scotty and a motor bike arrived there and all of them started beating the informant.
Accused Raju Barman instructed him to go back to Shillong and withdraw the tender. From there they had taken the informant to some other places. At night, they kept him in confinement in an unknown house near Bharat Ratna club. At about 1.30 „O‟ clock in the night they released him on the road near a patrol pump. After his release, he contacted the owner of his company over telephone who told him, that accused Biman Das also called his owner from cell phone No.7640982720 and asked him to withdraw the tender failing which he would face serious consequence.Page 3 of 10
[4] Sashi Mohan Debbarma, Inspector of Police and Officer-
in-charge of Airport police station reduced the oral complaint of the complainant into writing and registered Airport P.S Case No.21APR001 under Sections 364A read with Section 34 IPC against accused namely, Raju Barman, Biman Das, Rakesh and others and the investigation of the case was endorsed to U. Rahaman, a Sub-
Inspector of Police.
[5] Apprehending arrest in the case, Sukanta Gupta, the accused respondent herein, filed an application in the Sessions Court seeking pre-arrest bail under 438 Cr. P.C which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala (Court No.2) and bail was granted to the said accused respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 15.02.2021 observing as under:
"On perusal of L.C. Record as well as the CD I am of the considered opinion that the alleged offences may attract Section 363/342/506/34 of IPC. The alleged offences may not attract Section 364A of IPC on the reasoning that there is no material in the record to show that the miscreants have demanded ransom. We are further prima facie of the opinion that the material so far available may also not attract Section 382B of IPC. In this view of the matter I find it appropriate to allow the bail application.
Accordingly, accused namely, Sukanta Gupta is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Authority on condition that the petitioner shall not temper / terrorize the prosecution evidence/ witnesses and that he shall also not leave the territorial limits of this court without prior permission of the Lower court where the original case is pending. The accused petitioner shall also appear before the IO twice in a week.
The bail application accordingly stands
disposed of..........."
Page 4 of 10
[6] Aggrieved with the said order, State has filed this
application for cancellation of bail mainly on the following grounds:
(i) A strong prima facie case under Section 364A and 382B IPC (Tripura Amendment) has been made out against the accused respondent. The Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the seriousness and implication of the offence and the materials available against the accused while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
[ii] As a result of granting pre-arrest bail to the accused respondent, the whole investigation has been impaired and it has been quite difficult for the investigating agency to book the associates of the present accused respondent.
[iii] Before he was granted bail, several notices were issued to him under Section 41A Cr. P.C. But he did not turn up at the police station to face interrogation. [iv] Accused respondent never cooperated with the investigation agency.
According to learned P.P, all these materials were placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who granted bail to the accused without taking these materials into consideration.
[7] It is argued by Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor that even after bail was granted by the learned Page 5 of 10 Additional Sessions Judge, the accused respondent did not co- operate with the Investigating Agency, as a result of which the Investigating Agency has been facing extreme difficulties in carrying out the investigation of the case. Learned counsel therefore, urges the Court to cancel the bail granted to the accused and commit him to the custody.
[8] Mr. N. G. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent on the other hand submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail to the accused by a detailed order after taking into consideration all materials which were placed before the Court. According to Mr. Nandi, learned advocate, the accused respondent is not an FIR named accused in the case and no incriminating materials are available on record against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly granted pre-arrest bail to him. It is further contended by Mr. Nandi, learned advocate that bail once granted cannot be cancelled unless it is established that the accused has abused his liberty or there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice if he is allowed to remain on bail. In support of his contention, Mr. Nandi has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VRS. SANJAY GANDHI; reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411. Mr. Nandi has also referred to the decision dated 7th January, 2020 of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1974-1975 of 2019 (SLP (Crl.)Nos.8882-8883 of 2019) Page 6 of 10 wherein the Apex Court while examining the law relating to cancellation of bail held as follows:
"7. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 2 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.
8. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.
9. Having perused the law laid down by this Court on the scope of the power to be exercised in the matter of cancellation of bails, it is necessary to examine whether the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail is perverse and suffers from infirmities which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. No doubt, the Sessions Court did not discuss the material on record in detail, but there is an indication from the orders by which bail was granted that the entire material was perused before grant of bail. It is not the case of either the complainant- Respondent No.2 or the State that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account by the Sessions Court while granting bail to the Appellants. The order of the Sessions Court by which the bail was granted to the Appellants cannot be termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of the fact that the investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of the Appellant tampering with the evidence.
10. The petition filed for cancellation of bail is both on the grounds of illegality of the order passed by the Sessions Court and the conduct of the Appellants subsequent to their release after bail was granted. The complaint filed by one Bojja Ravinder to the Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar is placed on Page 7 of 10 record by Respondent No.2. It is stated in the complaint that the Appellants were roaming freely in the village and threatening witnesses. We have perused the complaint and found that the allegations made therein are vague. There is no mention about which accused out of the 15 indulged in acts of holding out threats to the witnesses or made an attempt to tamper with the evidence.
11. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and examining the material on record, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in cancelling the bail of the Appellants. The orders passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be termed as perverse. The complaint alleging that the Appellants were influencing witnesses is vague and is without any details regarding the involvement of the Appellants in threatening the witnesses. Therefore, the Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside."
According to Mr. Nandi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accused by a speaking order after taking into consideration all relevant facts and as such, there is no ground to cancel the bail granted to the accused respondent. Learned counsel therefore, urges the Court to reject the application seeking cancellation of bail.
[9] Matter with regard to cancellation of bail has been discussed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. Some of which are as follows:
(i) In DOLAT RAM AND OTHERS VRS. STATE OF HARYANA; reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 the Apex Court held that cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for directing cancellation of bail wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:
"4. ****** Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of Page 8 of 10 bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. *****."
(ii) Same principle was reiterated in MAHANT CHAND NATH YOGI AND ANOTHER VRS. STATE OF HARYANA; reported in (2003) 1 SCC 326 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:
"17. This Court in Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra & Anr. [2000 SCC (Cri) 1508] following the principles stated in Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] has reiterated that there is a distinction between rejection of bail in a non- bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted. Normally, very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. In the present case, the High Court, it appears, did not bear this distinction in mind and cancelled the bail in a mechanical manner."
[10] Perused the materials placed before the Court and considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties. The case diary has disclosed that the accused respondent is a government employee in the R.D Department. The police statements of several witnesses support his involvement in the alleged offence. It has surfaced on record that the accused respondent even visited the office of the bidder at Shillong to prevent them from submitting tender in respect of the said projects. After the tender was accepted by CPWD, the accused respondent Page 9 of 10 along with other FIR named accused persons started creating pressure on the bidder to withdraw the tender. Ultimately, the accused respondent along with his associates abducted the informant who is an employee of the said bidder and physically assaulted him. The record of the call details generated from the cell phone of the accused supporting his involvement in the alleged offence has also been produced along with the case diary. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting pre-arrest bail to the accused did not appreciate the implication of the offence and the fact that the associates of the accused respondent were still absconding who did not even respond to the notice issued by the Investigating Agency under Section 41A Cr.P.C. [11] Purpose of anticipatory bail is to prevent harassment and humiliation by unjustified arrest and detention of the accused. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr. P.C, the Court should also keep in mind that pre-arrest release of accused in a case where there are justifiable grounds for his arrest and detention is likely to affect a free, fair and full investigation of the case. In the given case, the accused who is a Government employee is alleged to have been interfering with the CPWD tender works as a negotiator. Prosecution has brought to record enough incriminating materials against him in support of the allegations against the accused respondent. Apparently, the accused respondent did not turn up despite issuance of frequent notices under Section 41A, Cr. PC against him. Having examined the matter in the light of the Page 10 of 10 judgments of the Apex Court cited to supra, I am of the considered view that accused respondent should not have been granted custodial immunity by way of granting pre-arrest bail to him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the facts that allegations against the accused respondent were serious which required a thorough investigation and that the accused was not co- operating with the investigating agency and also the fact that all other accused of the case were still absconding. [12] In view of what has been discussed above, bail granted to the accused respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge , West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.2) vide impugned order dated 15.02.2021 passed in BA No.26 of 2021 stands cancelled. The investigating agency is at liberty to arrest the accused respondent and take him into custody.
In terms of the above, this application stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Dipankar