Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 100 (TRI)

Md. Arkum Ali v. State of Tripura

2021-07-14

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] Anticipating arrest in Kadamtala P.S Case No.2021 KDL 028 under Sections 448/354/326/307 read with Section 34 IPC FIR named accused Md. Arkum Ali has approached this Court for pre arrest bail by filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [2] The factual background of the case is as under: Informant lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in- Charge of Kadamtala Police Station in North Tripura alleging, inter alia, that on 23.05.2021, at about 11.30 am present petitioner along with his brother Manfar Ali trespassed into the house of the informant in absence of the male members of her house and assaulted the grandmother of her husband who was at home at that time and after assaulting the old lady they dragged the informant to the courtyard of her house by catching hold of her hands and thereafter brutally assaulted her with deadly weapons with an intention to kill her. [3] Based on the said FIR of the first informant, Kadamtala P.S Case No. 2021 KDL 028 under Sections 448/354/326/307 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the petitioner and the case was taken up for investigation. [4] Apprehending arrest in the case petitioner, Md. Arkum Ali seeks his release on pre arrest bail. [5] Heard Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. [6] It is contended by Mr. Das that accused has been falsely implicated in the case as a result of complainant’s animosity towards him. Counsel argues that petitioner also received multiple injuries from the alleged occurrence for which he filed counter case against first informant and her family members. With reference to copy of order dated 05.01.2021 of State Police Accountability Commission, Agartala in Complaint Case No.33 of 2020 counsel submits that relationship between the parties was strained for long. Counsel also contends that petitioner is a service holder and his arrest and detention may have a serious impact on his career prospect. Counsel therefore, urges the court to appreciate the circumstances and grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. [7] Mr. Counsel also contends that petitioner is a service holder and his arrest and detention may have a serious impact on his career prospect. Counsel therefore, urges the court to appreciate the circumstances and grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. [7] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public prosecutor while vehemently opposing the bail application invites the attention of the Court to various clinical documents of the first informant and her injured grandmother to support the brutal attack on her and her old and ailing grandmother by the accused petitioner. It is contended by Mr. Datta, learned P.P that petitioner being a member of police service should not have been involved in such occurrence. According to learned P. P, the petitioner did not even spare an old and ailing lady during his revengeful attack on the house inmates of the first informant. Counsel also refers to the police statements of the material witnesses recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 Cr. P .C and submits that release of the accused on pre arrest bail will impair the investigation of the case. It is contended that the accused, because of his power and position is quite likely to influence the witnesses which, in turn, will spoil the whole investigation and trial of the case. Learned P. P therefore, urges the court to turn down the application of the petitioner for pre arrest bail. [8] Considered the submissions of the counsel of the parties. Perused the records of the case and counter case. The record demonstrates that there is a long standing dispute between the parties on some issues. But, in no circumstances it can be an excuse for assaulting an old and ailing neighbor. Detailed discussions of the materials available in the case diary may not be appropriate at this stage. [9] Suffice it to say that prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case against the petitioner which requires thorough investigation. I find merit in the submission of the Public Prosecutor that release of accused on pre-arrest bail is very likely to spoil the investigation of the case. First informant is a lady who has brought serious allegations against the petitioner who is a neighbour of her. Besides bringing the charge of attempt to murder, she has also accused the petitioner of outraging her modesty. As noted, the materials available on record, prima facie supports such allegations. First informant is a lady who has brought serious allegations against the petitioner who is a neighbour of her. Besides bringing the charge of attempt to murder, she has also accused the petitioner of outraging her modesty. As noted, the materials available on record, prima facie supports such allegations. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant custodial immunity to the petitioner at this pre-mature stage of investigation by granting him pre arrest bail. As a result, the bail petition stands rejected. [10] In terms of the above, the case is disposed of. Return the case diary.