Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 109 (TRI)

Sanjoy Tripura & Others v. State of Tripura

2021-07-28

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] R. K. Pur P.S Case No.107/2021 for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149,353,333,427 and 342 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 has been registered against the petitioners for which they have approached this Court seeking release on pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. [2] The factual background is as under: Officer-in-charge, R.K.Pur police station Udaipur lodged a suo motu FIR against as many as 26 accused including 2(two) women alleging, inter alia that on 2.7.2021 they wrongfully confined Haradhan Chandra Paul, Programme Secretary of Kalaban Village Council and his colleagues in the village council office at Kalaban. Having received the information at the police station, the said Officer-in-charge of R.K. Pur P.S recorded the information in the General Diary of the police station and proceeded to the place of occurrence along with required police staff. Having arrived at the place of occurrence, informant noticed a crowd consisting of 30/40 persons who were members of a political organization called “Tipra Motha”. They were in front of the village council office. The informant and his accompanying police staff requested them to release the Programme Secretary and his colleagues from confinement. In response, the petitioners misbehaved with police. Finding no other alternative, the police team applied required force to drive away the petitioners from that place. All on a sudden, they attacked the informant and his accompanying police staff with lathi, dao, spade, crowbars etc. They also damaged the motor bikes of police staff and injured some of the police staff who were discharging their duties. The injured police personnel were shifted to hospital for treatment. Police used tear gas to disperse the assembly. [3] Based on the said FIR, case was registered and it was taken up for investigation. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail to them in the event of their arrest. [4] Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. [5] Petitioners’ counsel contend that the petitioners, who are members of a political organization, assembled in a peaceful demonstration in front of the village council office at Kalaban when police came and started applying force to them for their dispersal. It is contended by Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. [5] Petitioners’ counsel contend that the petitioners, who are members of a political organization, assembled in a peaceful demonstration in front of the village council office at Kalaban when police came and started applying force to them for their dispersal. It is contended by Mr. Roy Barman, counsel of the petitioners that none of the petitioners made any kind of attack on police. According to the counsel all of them have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended by learned counsel that despite having no knowledge about the identity of the petitioners, the Officer-in-charge of R.K.Pur police station lodged the suo motu FIR against them giving their full details which suggested that the whole FIR was an afterthought and names and particulars of the petitioners were collected by the informant from some other source. It is submitted by learned counsel that petitioners are poor farmers and their arrest and detention will ruin their family. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the Court to protect them from arrest and detention by granting pre-arrest bail to them. [6] While opposing bail application, Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor contends that there is no ground to extend the benefit of custodial immunity under Section 438 Cr. P.C to the petitioners because all of them had committed a very serious offence by wrongfully confining two innocent persons for hours together and assaulting the police officers with a view to deter them from the discharge of their official duty. According to Mr. Datta, learned P.P, the accused were so desperate that they assembled in a group in front of the village council office with deadly weapons like dao, lathi and crowbars with a pre-meditation to commit the said offence and in these circumstances it would not be appropriate to release them on pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel therefore, urges the Court to reject their bail application. [7] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel of the parties. Perused all prosecution papers including the updated case diary which has been produced by the prosecution. The 21(twenty one) petitioners include two women. Prosecution has not made out any ground to justify custodial interrogation of these petitioners. If further interrogation of the petitioners is required for any purpose, it may be done even without arresting them. Perused all prosecution papers including the updated case diary which has been produced by the prosecution. The 21(twenty one) petitioners include two women. Prosecution has not made out any ground to justify custodial interrogation of these petitioners. If further interrogation of the petitioners is required for any purpose, it may be done even without arresting them. The Hon’ble Apex Court has elucidated the parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail in several decisions. While laying down such parameters in paragraphs 112 and 113 in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra: reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 : ( AIR 2011 SC 312 ) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “112. […] (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on a conviction by a court in respect of a cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice; (iv) the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences; (v) whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting them; (vi) the impact of the grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of magnitude affecting a large number of people; (vii) The court must carefully evaluate the entire material against the accused. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. Cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should be considered with even greater care and caution because over-implication in such cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) the reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.” [8] While addressing similar issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Smt. Anita Agartala and Others. Etc.: reported in 2021 Cri. L.J. 2066 : AIRonline 2020 SC 892 has held as under: “17. In the recent decision of the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), [ (2020) 5 SCC 1 ] the considerations which ought to weigh with the Court in deciding an application for the grant of anticipatory bail have been reiterated. The final conclusions of the Court indicate that: “92.1… The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. 92.3…While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. 92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.” [9] I have examined the present case in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court cited to supra. In view of the facts presented in the FIR, the nature and gravity of the offence, the role which has been attributed to the petitioners in the commission of the said offence and the defence case projected by the counsel of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution could not show any ground to justify the necessity of arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners. [10] Resultantly, the petition is allowed. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners namely, Sanjoy Tripura, Lal Denga Molsom, Jayanta Murashing, Arun Noatia, Biswajit Noatia, Ajit Noatia, Ranjit Debbarma, Napul Marak, Chandan Hari Jamatia, Biswajit Debbarma, Jyotirmoy Sangma, Fulan Devi Noatia, Sarathi Noatia, Suresh Tripura, Prabil Marak, Naru Marak, Mangal Debbarma, Mithun Marak, Sunday Bless Sangma, Rinku Noatia and Madhu Manik Molsom be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer on the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week for next four weeks for the purpose of fair and smooth investigation of the case. (ii) They will not try to influence any of the witnesses of this case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) They will not try to influence any of the witnesses of this case in any manner whatsoever. [11] In terms of the above, the bail petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Communicate the order to the Investigating Officer. Return the Case diary.