Tripura High Court
Smt. Maya Rani Gope vs The State Of Tripura on 14 November, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A.No.72 of 2024
(1) Sri Ripan Ghosh,
son of Sri Sushil Ghosh,
resident of Jalsheka, P.S.Ajmiriganj,
District-Habiganj, Bangladesh
(2) Sri Nepal Das,
son of Dulgobinda Das,
resident of Lalowarchar, P.S. Dhirai,
District-Sonamganj, Bangladesh
----Accused Person(s)
The accused person being lodged in judicial custody,
the present petition is preferred and presented by aunt of
Accused person No.1 and family friend of accused person No.2.
Smt. Maya Rani Gope,
wife of Gopesh Gope,
resident of Radhacharantilla,
Moharcherra, P.S. Teliamura,
District-Khowai, Tripura, Pin-799203
----Applicant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
[---
----Respondent(s)
_________________________________________________________ For Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
Mr. Subham Majumder, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
_________________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Order 14/11/2024 This application under Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. is filed for relaxation of the condition of bail granted by Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala dated 15.05.2024 in connection with Case No.2024 WAG 063. Page 2 of 4
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, Learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Raju Datta, Learned P.P. assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.
In course of hearing, Learned counsel, Mr. S. Lodh appearing on behalf of the accused persons in custody submitted that a case was registered under Section 120(B), 212, 370 of IPC read with Section 3 of Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also under Section 14(A) of Foreigners Act, 1946 against the accused persons in custody. The accused persons in custody approached for bail and by order dated 12.07.2024 the said two accused persons were granted bail by Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala but in imposing condition of bail it was ordered to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- in cash by each accused person which is too harsh against the accused persons in custody and they are not in a position to deposit such amount to the satisfaction of the authority. So, Learned counsel for the petitioners urged for taking lenient view and also drawn the attention of the Court referring order dated 05.05.2021 of this High Court passed in connection with Case No.Crl.Petn.No.13 of 2021.
On the other hand, Learned P.P. strongly opposed the application filed by the petitioners and submitted that the accused persons in custody have entered into India without any valid documents. So, if the condition as imposed is relaxed then there is every chance to abscond by accused persons and the entire trial would be vitiated.
I have seen the relevant papers annexed with the bail application and also heard Learned counsels at length. Also perused the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala and also the citation of this High Court referred. Although, the case was registered invoking different provisions of law but perhaps the investigating agency could not produce any such materials before the Learned Court below for which on 59 days Learned CJM considered the bail application. However, on perusal of the said order of Learned CJM it appears that the amount so determined by Learned CJM for depositing of cash money appears to be excessive. Page 3 of 4
In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Guddan alias Roop Narayan versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242 in para Nos. 14 to 19 observed as under :
"14. We are unable to appreciate the excessive conditions of bail imposed by the High Court. The fact that bail has been granted to the Appellant herein is proof enough to show that he is not to be languishing in jail during the pendency of the case.
15. While bail has been granted to the Appellant, the excessive conditions imposed have, in-fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail. If the Appellant had paid the required amount, it would have been a different matter. However, the fact that the Appellant was not able to pay the amount, and in default thereof is still languishing in jail, is sufficient indication that he was not able to make up the amount.
16. As has been stated in the Sandeep Jain case (supra), the conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail. In the present case, however, the excessive conditions herein have precisely become that, an antithesis to the grant of bail.
17. Any other accused in a similar circumstance at this point would not be in custody, however, the present Appellant, because of the conditions imposed, has not been able to leave the languish of jail. Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply with the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself.
18. Ld. Sr. Counsel Manish Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan on the basis of instructions has also very fairly conceded to the point that the conditions of bail are excessive and the appellant is in no financial condition to satisfy the conditions. We deeply appreciate his role as an officer of the court for his unbiased attitude in the matter.
19. We, therefore, allow this Appeal and set out to modify the bail order granted by the High Court. The Bail order is to continue, however, the conditions set for the grant of Bail stands waived off."
Here, in the given case, it was submitted that the accused persons in custody are very poor persons and they are day labourer and they would never be in a position to satisfy the conditions of bail granted by the Learned Trial Court for which they shall have to languish in jail for their inability to execute bail bond. The prosecution side also could not submit anything that the accused persons are in custody are having sufficient means to satisfy the conditions of bail. Admittedly, they entered India without any valid passport.
So, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the amount of bail determined by the Learned Court below Page 4 of 4 appears to be excessive and considering the facts and circumstances of this case the same needs to be modified.
Hence it is ordered that the accused persons in custody be asked to deposit Rs.50,000/- each in cash or they would execute bail bond each with two surities of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Learned Court below with further condition that in the event of release on bail they shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without prior permission of the Court and also shall report before IO as and when called for during the period of investigation id to remain in judicial custody as before.
With this observation, the present bail application stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be furnished to Learned Court below. Also a copy of this order be furnished to Learned counsel for the petitioners in course of the day and also a copy of this order be furnished to Learned P.P. for information to the IO of this case.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by
SABYASACHI SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE
BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.11.14 18:03:25
+05'30'
Sabyasachi B