Tripura High Court
Accused(S) vs The State Of Tripura on 8 January, 2021
Author: S.G Chattopadhyay
Bench: S.G Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB No.135 of 2020
Shri. Rupak Datta@Suman
..................Accused(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
..............Respondent(s)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G CHATTOPADHYAY
For the Applicant(s) : Ms. S.Deb(Gupta), Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.Datta, PP.
ORDER
08.01.2021 [1] This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,(Cr.P.C herein after) has been filed for granting pre arrest bail to the accused petitioner namely Rupak Datta@Suman who is an FIR named accused along with Smt. Manju Rani Datta in West Agartala PS Case No. 195 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 287,290,427,336,436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC in short).
[2] Heard Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel, appearing along with Mr.Saikat Rahman and Hrishikesh Bhattacharjee, learned Advocates for the petitioner. Also AB No.135 of 2020 Page 2 of 6 heard Mr.Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent.
[3] Before I advert to the submissions of learned counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to state the brief facts of the case which are as follows:
The District Magistrate and Collector of the West Tripura District lodged an FIR with the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura on 18.11.2020 alleging, inter alia, that a fire incident took place at 10.30 p.m on 17.11.2020 in Bhati Abhoynagar in which 5 dwelling houses were completely burnt down. A report received from the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar indicated that the fire originated from a blast in the battery charging station owned and operated by the petitioner who is the nephew of co-accused Smt. Manju Rani Datta. The FIR further revealed that at the time of the occurrence the accused petitioner was charging more than 100 battery fitted cycle rickshaw in the charging station and the entire business was being carried out by him illegally.
[4] Based on such information received from the District Magistrate and Collector, West Agartala P.S. Case No.2020 WAG 195 under Sections 287,290,427,336 and Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was taken up.
[5] Apprehending arrest in the case the petitioiner has approached this court seeking pre arrest bail.
AB No.135 of 2020 Page 3 of 6[6] Appearing for the petitioner, Ms.S.Deb(Gupta) learned counsel submits that the charges which have been labeled against the accused petitioner are all bailable except the charge under Section 436 IPC. Learned counsel refers to Section 436 IPC and submits that the gravamen of Section 436 IPC is the intention to destroy houses etc. by committing mischief by fire or explosive substances which is missing in this case. According to Ms.Deb(Gupta), learned counsel, nowhere in the FIR it has been stated that the accused petitioner ever intended to destroy the neighbouring houses by committing mischief by fire. The gist of the allegations against him is that he was carrying out battery charging activities for profit by charging the battery fitted cycle rickshaw in his house and according to the informant the business was being run by the accused petitioner illegally.
[7] According to Ms.Deb(Gupta),learned counsel, for arguments' sake even if it is conceived that the petitioner was actually doing such business, in no circumstances, he can be booked under Section 436 IPC because no intention of destroying the neighbouring houses by fire has been attributed to him. It is argued by Ms.Deb(Gupta), learned counsel, that the petitioner can at best be booked for negligent conduct with respect to machinery or for doing public nuisance or for committing rash and negligent act endangering human life and personal safety of others and all those offences under IPC are bailable. It is therefore, argued by learned counsel that the materials available on record do AB No.135 of 2020 Page 4 of 6 not justify the arrest and detention of the accused petitioner. On these grounds Ms.Deb(Gupta), learned counsel, urges the court to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner for protection of his personal liberty.
[8] Mr.R.Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the bail application and argues that allegations against the accused are serious. He was carrying out hazardous activities without any sanction of law and by his conduct endangered the safety of his neighbours and caused destruction of huge private properties in his neighbourhood and therefore, he does not deserve a pre arrest bail. The learned counsel urges the court for dismissal of his bail application.
[9] I have perused the case diary and considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties in the context of the present case. Submission of Ms.S.Deb(Gupta), leaned counsel of the petitioner that except Section 436 IPC, all other charges labeled against the petitioner are bailable, is true. It is equally true that in absence of intention or knowledge, charge under Section 436 IPC does not survive against a person. In the instant case, allegation against the accused petitioner is that he was carrying out the business of charging battery fitted cycle rickshaw in his house without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and in the course of such activities a blast took place which AB No.135 of 2020 Page 5 of 6 generated fire and caused destruction of some houses in the neighbourhood. There is no doubt that there was negligence on the part of the accused for which he has been charged under Sections 237, 290,427 and 336 IPC. In so far as Section 436 IPC is concerned, the materials available on record, do not make out any prima facie case for such offence against the accused petitioner. Moreover, admittedly the petitioner is a local resident and possibility of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the court is remote. Having said so, this court is of the view that the accused petitioner may be released on pre arrest bail.
[9] Accordingly it is ordered that in the event of his arrest accused petitioner namely Rupak Datta@Suman Datta be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer on the following conditions:
(i) He will abstain from carrying out the said business without sanction of law.
(ii) He will not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala.
(iii) He will not part with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
(iv) He will report at the police station at least once in a week on the date and at the time appointed by the IO and more if so required by the investigating officer during the investigation of the case.AB No.135 of 2020 Page 6 of 6
[10] The investigating officer will be at liberty to interrogate him at the Police station in accordance with law whenever required during the investigation of the case.
Bail petition is thus allowed and disposed of. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost and the order be also communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala.
Return the CD.
JUDGE Saikat Sarma AB No.135 of 2020