Tripura High Court
Shri Uttam Bhowmik vs The State Of Tripura on 4 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B. No.63 of 2025
1. Shri Uttam Bhowmik,
S/o-Late Haridas Bhowmik, aged about 55 years, resident of
Padmapur, P.O. & P.S.-Dharmanagar, Dist.-North Tripura, PIN-
799250.
2. Shri Jaharlal Debnath, S/o-Shri Jogendra Debnath, aged about
50 years, resident of Bilthai, Near Bilthai Panchayat Office, P.S.-
Panisagar, Dist.-North Tripura, PIN-799260.
---- Accused applicant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
[---
----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
04/09/2025
This pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for granting bail to the accused applicants, Shri Uttam Bhowmik and Shri Jaharlal Debnath in connection with Dharmanagar PS case No.2025 DMN 010 under Sections 126(2), 103, 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh and Learned Counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the accused-applicants. Also heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
Today, the case diary is produced by Learned P.P. Record from the concerned Court of Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has also been received.
(2)
At the time of hearing Learned Counsel, Mr. Lodh appearing on behalf of the accused applicants first of all drawn the attention of this Court that on the basis of an F.I.R. laid by one Smt. Sampa Rani Das (Bhowmik) on 08.02.2025 the present case has been registered against the accused applicants. Referring the contents of the F.I.R., Learned Counsel submitted that from the contents of the F.I.R. it is clear that the present accused applicants had no motive to commit the alleged crime and furthermore, the materials on record do not satisfy the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, 2023. Learned Counsel also drawn the attention of this Court that the informant i.e. the wife of the deceased and her son made their judicial statement before the Learned Court below when they categorically stated that they have filed the present case out of misunderstanding. But, inspite of applying for pre-arrest bail in 3(three) occasions, the concerned Learned Sessions Judge did not consider the bail application filed by the present accused applicants. Learned Counsel further submitted that both the present accused applicants are in Government service so, if at this stage they are taken into custody then they will be suspended from their job. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no chance of absconsion of the present accused applicants and they are ready to face trial and as such, Learned Counsel urged for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused applicants. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants also referred one citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ravinder Kumar alias Raju vs. State of Punjab reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 635 wherein in (3) para Nos.4, 5 and 6, similar matter has been dealt with. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
"4. On facts, it is to be noticed that the deceased was riding a motorcycle in which his father was travelling pillion. Alongside the brother of the deceased was also riding a bike; the three proceeding to a common destination. At a crossing, they saw a three wheeler colliding with a scooter and the rider of the scooter falling down. The offending vehicle sped away while the father and sons approached the fallen scooterist, who told them that he had escaped without any injuries. At that moment, another scooterist also joined them, who was the colleague of the person involved in the accident; both being Lecturers in a nearby college. The scooterist wanted to pursue the offending vehicle and requested the father and sons to join them. Together, the five went after the vehicle and detected it at the crime scene. The scooterist and the father accosted the identified accused and questioned them on their conduct. It was the prosecution's case that while an altercation was going on, the appellant-herein picked up an iron rod from his vehicle and hit the deceased on the head. After this the three accused, who were in the three-wheeler, sped away and the injured was taken to the hospital.
5. A DDR was registered immediately on the information supplied by the father but no First Information Report(F.I.R.) was registered. An F.I.R. was registered only after five days when the victim succumbed to the injury. The post- mortem report clearly indicates a homicidal death occasioned by the single injury inflicted on the head. The iron rod was recovered on the confessional statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We are not looking at the nitty- gritty of the evidence, since the limited adjudication possible is as to the nature of the crime; whether it can be classified as a culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the I.P.C.
6. There is no motive alleged on the accused nor can there be found any premeditation of the accused. True, the accused were travelling in a vehicle which hit the scooterist and sped away. It was the scooterist accompanied by four others, one of whom was the deceased, who chased the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle and its occupants having been identified, it was the five who confronted them and accused them of having dashed down the scooter and not having even the courtesy to help the fallen scooterist. Pausing here, we have to clearly notice that the father of the deceased and the scooterist who had been hit, both spoke of the number of the offending vehicle having been taken by them. Despite this, they did not think it fit to approach the police and took law into their own hands, while pursuing the offending vehicle which was involved in a hit and run and confronting its occupants."
Relying upon the principle of law laid down in the said citation, Learned Counsel urged before this Court for considering the said citation at the time of deciding of this bail application.
On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent strongly countered the submission made by (4) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused applicants and submitted that from the contents of the F.I.R. it is clear that the present accused applicants are directly involved with the alleged offence. Learned Counsel further submitted that whether erstwhile Section 304 or Section 302 of IPC would apply or not in this case is a matter of trial, which cannot be decided at this stage. Furthermore, the witnesses of the prosecution whose statements have already been recorded by the I.O. clearly indicated the involvement of the accused applicants with the alleged crime and also the concerned Learned Sessions Judge in 3(three) occasions rejected their bail application. So, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, Learned P.P. urged for dismissal of this pre-arrest bail application.
Considered.
The prosecution allegation, in short, was that on 07.02.2025, according to the informant, when her husband was returning back to their rented house from Dharmanagar by driving his tuk-tuk and reached near Padmapur Chowmuhani in front of Padmapur Club that time the accused persons with their motorcycle came directly in front of her husband's tuktuk. The rider of the bike did not sustain injury but the husband of the informant could not control the speed of the tuk-tuk and fell down on the ground. That time the accused persons severely assaulted her husband for which he became unconscious. The witnesses then came to the place of occurrence and her husband was taken to Dharmanagar Sub- Divisional Hospital by Fire Service. Thereafter, he was referred to (5) AGMC & GBP Hospital but on the way, when they reached at Kamalpur, her husband succumbed to his injury. Thereafter, the body of her husband was again moved to Dharmanagar Sub- Divisional Hospital when the attending doctor declared him as dead. This is the sum and substance of the F.I.R. and on the basis of the F.I.R. the present case has been registered under Sections 126(2), 103, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
The investigation of the case is in progress and by this time the I.O. has recorded the statements of some of the witnesses of the prosecution and also has collected the post-mortem examination report of the deceased. From the post-mortem examination report it appears that the cause of death was head injury caused by hard and blunt force.
In course of investigation, as already stated, the I.O. has recorded the statement of some of the witnesses of the prosecution. From the statement of the witnesses so far recorded by I.O. up to this stage, it appears that on the alleged day probably the deceased husband of the informant might have confronted with the bike of one of the present accused persons for which they fell down on the ground although they did not sustain any injury. Thereafter, probably they chased the tuk-tuk. However, at Harichand Road, Padmapur the tuk-tuk of the deceased husband of the informant tilted on the road at the time of driving and he sustained injury to his leg. In the meantime, the present accused applicants appeared at the spot and some neighbouring persons also assembled therein. Thereafter, the accused persons inspite of sending the deceased (6) husband of the informant to the hospital dashed him, resulting which he fell down on the road made up of CC blocks and after falling on the road he sustained injury to the backside of his head. He was then taken to Dharmanagar Sub-Divisional Hospital from where he was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital. But unfortunately on his way to Agartala, at Kamalpur, he succumbed to his injury.
Now, as alleged by Learned Counsel for the accused applicants whether Section 105 of BNS or Section 103 of BNS would attract in this case or not that is to be decided in course of trial and not during investigation of this case as because the I.O. of this case is still conducting the investigation. However, Learned Sessions Judge did not believe the judicial statements of the wife and the son of the deceased. Further, from the statements of witnesses so far recorded by the I.O. up to this stage of investigation it is crystal clear that on that relevant point of time the present accused applicants also assaulted the deceased but it is not clear whether due to their assault he succumbed to his injury or not. Although, all the witnesses of the prosecution very categorically stated that in course of hot altercation both the accused applicants dashed against the deceased victim resulting which he fell down on the ground and sustained injury to the backside of his head which may ultimately cause his death.
However, since in this case charge-sheet has not yet been filed and trial has not yet been commenced so this is not the right time to give any clear observation regarding application of Sections 105 or Section 103 of BNS in this case. Further, considering (7) the materials on record, Learned Sessions Judge did not believe the statements of the informant and her son at the time of disposal of the bail application which in my considered view was not correct because there is no evidence on record that due to assault the victim succumbed to his injury because the post-mortem report speaks otherwise. However, since the accused applicants are Government servants, I am inclined to allow them pre-arrest bail at this stage.
In the event of arrest the present accused applicants shall execute bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount each with condition that they shall make themselves available before the I.O. as and when called for, for the sake of investigation and they shall not make any attempt to tamper the evidence on record of the prosecution nor they shall threaten the informant or any family members and further they shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned PS without prior permission of the O/C of the concerned PS. In case of violation of the conditions of bail the concerned I.O. shall be at liberty to approach to the concerned court for cancellation of their bail. It is also made clear that since one of the accused persons is a police personnel so the I.O. shall conduct the investigation of this case without being biased or without any favour, keeping in mind that the principles of natural justice is not violated.
With this observation, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed and thus disposed of. (8)
Return back the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order. Return back the Case Diary to I.O. through Learned P.P. along with a copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the Learned counsel for the accused- applicants for information and compliance.
JUDGE
Snigdha
AMRITA Digitally signed
by AMRITA DEB
DEB Date: 2025.09.04
17:28:15 +05'30'