Tripura High Court
Mr. T.D. Majumder vs Mr. R. Datta on 8 January, 2021
Author: S.G. Chattopadhyay
Bench: S.G. Chattopadhyay
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A.B No. 01 of 2021
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 08/01/2021 [1] This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C in short) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner namely Pran Gopal Debnath who is a FIR named accused in East Agartala P.S. case No. 160 of 2020 under Sections 323, 384, 35 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
[2] Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
[3] Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P appearing for the State respondent.
[4] Facts of the case are as under: First informant Smt. Mithu Bhowmik who is the mother of co-accused Smt. Kashmira Bhowmik lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in-charge, East Agartala police station alleging, inter alia, that after the death of her husband, she along with her daughter Kashmira entered into an agreement with a promoter namely Ranjit Debnath for construction of residential flats in her house. After the construction work was taken up by said Sri Ranjit Page 2 of 4 Debnath, petitioner Pran Gopal Debnath started creating troubles and Kashmira, accused daughter of the informant joined said Pran Gopal Debnath and conspired against the promoter for extortion of money from him. Subsequently, accused Pran Gopal assaulted said Shri Ranjit Debnath and accused daughter of the informant shared some objectionable photographs of her mother with accused Pran Gopal Debnath which made the informant mentally upset. Then she reported the matter to police by lodging the said FIR against her daughter Kashmira and accused petitioner Pran Gopal.
[5] Based on her FIR East Agartala P.S. case No.160 of 2020 under Sections 323,384,354 and 506 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation. In apprehension of his arrest in this case, petitioner Pran Gopal has approached this court seeking pre- arrest bail. Smt. Kashmira Bhowmik, co-accused has already been released on pre-arrest bail vide order dated 18.12.2020 of this court. [6] Appearing for the petitioner Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel submits that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. According to Mr. Datta Majumder, learned counsel, the informant voluntarily executed an agreement with the petitioner for construction of residential flats in her house after the death of her husband. In support of his contention Mr. Datta Majumder, learned counsel has produced photocopy of the agreement dated 11.07.2019. It is contended by Mr. Datta Majumder, learned counsel Page 3 of 4 that the case has been instituted at the instigation of others including Sri Ranjit Debnath, another promoter who is not on good terms with the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Datta Majumder, learned counsel that the petitioner has committed no criminal offence for which he deserves arrest and detention in custody. Mr. Datta Majumder, learned counsel submits that unless this court protects his liberty by extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to him he is likely to be arrested by the investigating agency.
[7] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P on the other hand opposes the bail application and submits that the materials available on record do not justify the release of the petitioner on pre-arrest bail. Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P, therefore, urges the court for cancellation of his petition.
[8] Perused the case diary and other materials available on record. Apparently, the case has been lodged by the mother of the co- accused Kashmira Bhowmik against her daughter and the present petitioner owing to their property dispute. The informant seems to have cast various aspersions on her daughter and the present petitioner. The materials available on record do not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner justifying his arrest and detention during the investigation of the case. Moreover, the petitioner is a local resident and there is no chance of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the trial court during the investigation and trial of the case. Page 4 of 4
[9] In view of what is discussed above, it is directed that in the event of his arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with 2 (two) local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the investigation officer on the following conditions:
i. He will not interfere with the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.
ii. He will not try to influence the witnesses of the case. iii. He will report at the East Agartala police station atleast once in a week and more if so required by the investigating officer and face interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. [10] The bail petition is thus allowed and the case is disposed of.
Return the case diary to Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. JUDGE Rudradeep