Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 196 (TRI)

Pran Krishna Das v. State of Tripura

2021-11-01

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2021
JUDGMENT S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.- This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C which has been filed for granting pre arrest bail to petitioner Pran Krishna Das who is apprehending arrest in R.K. Pur PS case No.2021/RKP/125 registered under sections 353, 333, 307, 384 read with section 34 IPC. [2] Similar application was filed by the petitioner earlier which was rejected by this court by an order dated 15.09.2021. [3] The facts of the case may be reproduced from the said order dated 15.09.2021 which is as under: “[2] The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the FIR lodged by Litan Chakraborty, victim with the Officer in charge of R.K.Pur Police station on 12.08.2021. The informant alleged that on 12.08.2021 at about 03 O’clock in the afternoon he was going to his office for performing duty. Accused along with his associates stood on his way and attacked him with an iron rod. The accused gave several blows on his forehead with the said iron rod. Besides physically assaulting him, accused also destroyed his official papers and robbed him of a sum of Rs.7000/-. The informant at that time was a Supervisor(Assistant) in Udaipur Municipal Council. The informant also alleged that as a result of the assault, he received cut injury in his left hand and he also received bleeding injury in several parts of his body. His FIR was registered as R.K.Pur P.S. Case No.2021 RKP/125 under Sections 353,333,307 and 384 read with Section 34 IPC and the case was taken up for investigation.” [4] Heard Mr. H. Debnath, learned senior advocate appearing along with Ms. U. Chanda, advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. representing the State respondent. [5] It is submitted by Mr. Debnath, learned senior advocate that investigation is almost complete. Most of the witnesses of the case have been examined by the investigating agency and the purpose of arrest and custodial interrogation of the accused is over and therefore there is no reason to arrest and detain the accused. It is further contended by learned senior advocate that as per the medical report, alleged injuries were all simple and the allegation of the prosecution that the accused attacked and caused fatal injuries to the informant are all false and no non bailable offence is made out against the accused. It is further contended by learned senior advocate that as per the medical report, alleged injuries were all simple and the allegation of the prosecution that the accused attacked and caused fatal injuries to the informant are all false and no non bailable offence is made out against the accused. Learned senior counsel further submits that mother of the accused has fallen seriously ill and thereafter his wife has also fallen ill who has been undergoing treatment in the isolation ward of a hospital at Agartala and there is none at home to look after these ailing members of the family. Mr. Debnath, learned senior advocate, therefore, urges the court to release the accused on bail on any condition whatsoever. [6] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the bail application. His contention is that apart from the injured informant there were many other eye witnesses whose police statements under section 161, Cr.P.C have been recorded and they have categorically asserted that the accused petitioner made a violent attack on the informant with deadly weapons when he was in the discharge of his official duty. Mr. Datta, learned P.P. contends that the eye witnesses have categorically stated that had the accused not been prevented by them, the informant would have been killed. Learned P.P. also refers to a petition dated 08.10.2021 of the investigating officer who has applied to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for issuing non bailable arrest warrant against the accused because even after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this court by an order dated 15.09.2021 despite several attempts the accused could not be apprehended. Learned P.P. submits that the allegation against the accused is serious in nature because his intention was to prevent a public servant from discharging his official duty for which he assaulted the informant severely and terrorized him. It is contended by learned P.P that there are many other witnesses who are yet to be examined and if the accused is released on bail at this stage, a fair investigation will not be possible. Learned P.P., therefore, urges the court to reject his bail application. It is contended by learned P.P that there are many other witnesses who are yet to be examined and if the accused is released on bail at this stage, a fair investigation will not be possible. Learned P.P., therefore, urges the court to reject his bail application. [7] When the last bail application was considered by this court on 15.09.2021 the case diary was perused and the submissions made by learned counsel of the parties were considered and the bail application was rejected for the following reasons: “[6] Considered the submissions of learned counsel. Perused the case record including CD. [7] It appears from the injury report of the informant that after the alleged assault, he was treated in Gomati District hospital where doctor found swelling injuries on his neck, fore arm and other parts of his body and cut injuries were also found on his forehead and left elbow which supports the allegation that blows were inflicted by the accused on those parts of his body. A detailed exploration of the statements of the witnesses would not be appropriate at this stage. Suffice it to say that the statements so far recorded and materials collected by the investigating agency have made out a good prima facie case against the accused. [8] The allegations against the accused are no doubt serious. Sufficient incriminating materials supporting those allegations are available on record. There is merit in the submission of the public prosecutor that pre arrest bail of the accused at this stage is likely to impair a fair investigation. Keeping in view the gravity of the charges, materials available in support of those charges, punishment prescribed for those offences and other settled parameters, this court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to the accused at this stage of this case.” [8] I have considered the updated case diary which has been produced by learned P.P. The statements of the witnesses particularly that of the informant namely Litan Chakraborty would reveal that when the informant was on his way to office along with the official papers, the accused attacked him with deadly weapons. It is also stated by him that the accused snatched away a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the injured informant and damaged the official papers which were being carried by him. It is also stated by him that the accused snatched away a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the injured informant and damaged the official papers which were being carried by him. Immediately, the injured informant was taken to the District Hospital at Udaipur for treatment. The case diary also contains the injury report which supports the allegation of assault. Other witnesses who were present at the place also supported the charges against the accused. Some of the witnesses have categorically stated that the informant would have been killed by the accused had he not been rescued by them. [9] The incriminating materials available on record have made out a good prima facie case against the accused. There is merit in the contention of the learned P.P. that pre arrest bail to the accused is likely to impair a fair investigation. [10] In view of the gravity of the charges, materials available in support of the charges, punishment prescribed for the offences and all other settled parameters laid down for consideration of anticipatory bail, this court is of the view that in the given circumstances, the extra ordinary relief of pre arrest bail cannot be granted to the accused. Resultantly, the bail petition stands rejected and the matter is disposed of. Return the case diary to Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P.