Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Smt. Monalisha Ghosh vs The State Of Tripura And Another on 13 December, 2022

                                 Page 1 of 5



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_

                         Crl. Petn. No.44 of 2022

Smt. Monalisha Ghosh
                                                       ......Petitioner(s)
                                 VERSUS
The State of Tripura and another

                                                       ......Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) _O_R_D_E_R_ 13/12/2022 Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public prosecutor assisted by Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Page 2 of 5 Agartala, in BA No. 172 of 2022, in connection with Ranirbazar P.S. Case No. 2022 RNB 037, dated, 25.08.2022, U/S 448/354B/323 of IPC. [3] The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner lodged a written complaint with the O.C. Ranirbazar P.S. on 25.08.2022 stating inter alia that on the same date at about 11.18 am she was alone in her house. Taking such advantage, the respondent No.2 namely, Sri Bhulan Ghosh, neighbour of the petitioner, came to the house of the petitioner and started touching her badly sitting near to her. Allegedly, the respondent No.2 had pulled her closer to him and started harassing her badly touching her body from shoulder to breast and then lower part of her stomach (between legs) and vagina. Thereafter, when the respondent No.2 was about to attack the petitioner for committing rape, wife of the respondent No. 2 came there and took the respondent No.2 with her. When the father of the petitioner asked about the matter to the respondent No.2, he attacked the father of the petitioner badly. The said complaint was registered as Ranirbazar P.S. Case No. 2022 RNB 037, dated, 25.08.2022, U/S 448/ 354B/323 of IPC. [4] Then the respondent No.2 i.e. the FIR named accused person Bhulan Ghosh made an application U/S 438 of Cr.P.C before the Ld. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for granting him anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Ranirbazar P.S. Case No. 2022 RNB 037, dated, 25.08.2022, U/S 448/ 354B/323 of IPC. After Page 3 of 5 hearing the parties the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by an order dated 01.09.2022 granted anticipatory bail to the FIR named accused person (respondent No.2 herein). The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"On perusal of the record as well as the CD the materials available therewith, I am of the considered opinion that the alleged offence may not attract Section 354B of the IPC and as such, the case at hand is a fit case where the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Accordingly, accused-petitioners namely, Bhulan Ghosh shall be allowed to go on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing bal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority on condition that the petitioner shall make himself available as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
Return the LC Record and CD along with a copy of this order.
The bail application accordingly, stands disposed of on contest.
Furnish a copy of this order to the petitioner free of cost.
Enter the result."

[5] Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the petitioner filed the present petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in bail application No. 172/2022 in connection with the Ranirbazar P.S. No. 2022 RNB 037 dated 25.08.2022, U/S 448/ 354B/323 of IPC [6] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on getting anticipatory bail, the FIR named accused person (respondent No.2) became desperate and the petitioner has been receiving innumerable calls from Page 4 of 5 various mobiles which threatened her with dire consequence and abused her in filthy/abusive language and asked her to withdraw the FIR. Confronted with such situation, the petitioner on 04.09.2022 lodged a written complaint to the O.C, Ranirbazar P.S against respondent No.2, but the O.C. Ranirbazar P.S. did not take any action. Having informed about the lodging of the written complaint, the respondent No.2 became desperate and has been intimidating the petitioner and her family members. As a result, the petitioner and her family members left their home and took shelter in her maternal uncle's house at Aralia. On 10.09.2022 the father of the petitioner went to his house and found that the gate of his house is broken and the tin made boundary wall was also damaged. [7] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that neither the answering respondent nor any of his friends/ relatives made any call to the petitioner or threatened her. It is further stated that when Ld. Additional Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent No.2, there was no need or necessity to make call or to threaten the petitioner for withdrawal of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that after granting bail, the respondent No.2 never went to the house of the petitioner nor did he break the gate of the house of the petitioner.

Page 5 of 5

[8] For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the alleged offence may not attract Section 354B of the IPC and as such, no interference is required in the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by Ld Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in B.A No. 172/2022. [9] Accordingly, the present criminal petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MunnaS