Tripura High Court
Tanmoy Saha And Ors vs The State Of Tripura on 30 August, 2019
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB 96/2019
Tanmoy Saha and ors.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
30/08/2019
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the State-respondent.
This is an application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioners, who are apprehending arrest, in connection with Amtali PS case no. 68 of 2019 under sections 326/307/386/34 of the IPC.
On perusal of the materials on record, I find that there are two other cases being Amtali PS case no. 69 of 2019 and Amtali PS case no. 71 of 2019 which are connected to the instant case. Today Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP has produced the case diaries of all the cases.
In both the above noted connected cases, two persons appear to be common. Curious enough, though the place of occurrence is stated to be different but, the time and date of the occurrence are the same and the assailants as well as the victims are also same, which casts a serious doubt in the mind of this Page 2 of 4 about the genuinity of the complaint as well as the credibility of the complainants. Some other accused persons, who have been implicated in the instant case (Amtali PS case no. 68 of 2019) have already been enlarged on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.
I find from the case diary of Amtali PS case no. 69 of 2019 that some of the accused persons of the present petition suffered injuries and they were treated in the hospital.
In the instant case, I find one Tulsi Paul has suffered cut injury but no surgery was required. I also find statements of some of the witnesses under section 164(5) Cr.P.C. I find that in Amtali PS case No. 69 of 2019, one police guard of the Badharghat Railway Station has given statement to the police that after arrival of MLA, Sri Ramprasad Paul, the situation aggravated and his associates started to assault the accused persons of this instant petition, mercilessly.
It is apparent from the case diary of all the three cases that the accusation and counter accusation have been made out of group rivalry of one of the political party.
As I said earlier, that since it is found that the same accused persons were named in the FIR of the two cases, place of occurrence being different, but on the same date and time, prima facie, in my opinion the complicity of the present accused persons seemed to be doubtful. Said Ramprasad Paul, MLA is Page 3 of 4 also one of the principal-accuseds of Amtali PS case no. 69 of 2019 and from the case diary of Amtali PS case no. 69 of 2019 I find there are series of lapse in the process of investigation, which also has been observed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st class, Court no. 6, Agartala, West Tripura, by its order dated 20.06.2019. The order dated 20.06.2019 is as under:
"Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that fair investigation is a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Pooja Paula vs. Union of India. Our parent Hon'ble Gauhati High Court also observed the same in Rana Sinha alias Sujit Sinha vs. State of Tripura.
It is contradictory on the face of case diary and the report submitted on 13.06.2019 on the fact that in the report it is stated that the complainant was not found available as on 13.06.2019 whereas her statement was recorded by IO on 08.06.2019.
It is reflected by the IO herself that the witnesses are afraid of and due to that reason not opening up about the incident. There is no entry in respect of the reason of fear of the witnesses and steps taken by the IO to ensure their safety or whether IO tried to know the reason of being afraid off. Witnesses are the eyes and ears of the court and if witnesses are not opening up about the incident even at the stage of investigation, there is no possibility to ensure fair trial and failure to ensure fair trial is failure to ensure the fundamental right of a person. I find no argument can justifies any opposite view.
I find lack of justification in respect of the grounds shown in the report that one accused is under medical rest and another accused being public representative presence during the trial can be ensured. There is no assurance in the report regarding non-interference during the course of investigation using the power of position of being public representative.
By this order this court is not giving any direction whether to arrest or not to arrest any accused as IO is the best person to decide the same. But IO also to ensure that there is no interference during the course of investigation. Given under the facts in hand where the IO herself mentioned that the witnesses are afraid off to state about the incident no other inference can be drawn, but the fact that the investigation is not in a proper course of direction".
From the material contradictions found in the related cases, I find non-granting of the pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioners would tentamount to deprivation of the right to life as Page 4 of 4 enumerated under Article 21 of the Constitution of the India. As such, I am inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioners as an interim measure till 18.09.2019.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the accused-petitioners, namely, Sri Tanmoy Saha, Sri Manish Deb, Sri Indrajit Nama, Sri Sibu Majumder, Sri Pranab Chandra Dey and Sri Ajit Nama, may be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
List the matter on 18.09.2019.
Return back the case diaries of all the cases to the learned Public Prosecutor JUDGE Saikat