Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 199 (TRI)

Atin Saha v. State of Tripura

2021-11-10

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] Heard learned counsel representing the accused petitioner. Heard learned PP representing the State respondent. [2] Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that term of the pre arrest bail granted to the petitioner by an order dated 07.10.2021 will be expiring today. Counsel submits that during the period of interim protection granted to the accused by an ad interim pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, he never misused the concession granted to him. Even there is no allegation against him that he ever extended any threat to any of the witnesses of this case or tried to abscond from the process of the court or from the reach of the investigating agency. Counsel submits that accused has meticulously complied with all conditions which were imposed on him while granting pre arrest bail to him. [3] Learned PP on the other hand submits that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been submitted by the investigating officer before the court. As such, the accused may be asked to appear before the trial court and submit to the process of the Court. [4] Perused the record. The period of interim bail granted to the accused under Section 438 CrPC was last extended by this court by order dated 07.10.2021 which reads as under: [1] Heard Mr. S. Rahman, counsel appearing for the petitioner. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. representing the State respondent. [2] By the last order dated 17.09.2021 interim protection granted to the petitioner was extended till date observing as under: “[1] By order dated 03.09.2021 petitioner, Koushik Mukherjee was granted pre-arrest bail for an interim period till date. He is an accused in East Agartala P.S Case No.2021 EAG 071 which has been registered against him on the charges punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 304 Part-II IPC and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Allegations against him are that on 15.06.2021 at around 8.15 a.m. he smashed the father of the informant under the wheels of his speeding car. Allegations against him are that on 15.06.2021 at around 8.15 a.m. he smashed the father of the informant under the wheels of his speeding car. The factual background of the case has been narrated in the past orders which may be reproduced as under: Doctor Smt. Priyanka Sinha, daughter of Doctor Prasenjit Sinha of Banamali Pur, Agartala lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of East Agartala Police Station on 15.06.2021 at around 6.30 P.M. In her FIR Smt. Sinha alleged that on 14.06.2021, her father left home between 7.45 and 8.15 A.M. for offering prayer in the nearby Loknath Ashram. On his way back home, he was walking along his left side of the road. At that time a speeding car bearing registration no.TR-01-AT-0325 hit his father. As a result, her father died at the spot. Driver fled away with his vehicle after the accident. According to her, a delivery boy of Zomato witnessed the accident who had also taken photograph of the offending vehicle. The informant daughter of the deceased further alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. [2] Based on her FIR, East Agartala P.S. case No.2021 EAG 071 under Sections 279 & 304A IPC and Sections 184 & 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered and the case was taken up for investigation. [3] By the last order dated 03.09.2021 petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail for an interim period till date under the following conditions: (i) He will appear at the concerned police station and meet the IO of the case twice in a week during the bail period for the purpose of investigation. (ii) He will not leave the state without prior approval of the IO. (iii) He will not try to influence any of the witnesses of the case or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. [4] Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that pursuant to the direction of this Court, petitioner appeared before the investigating officer twice in a week during the bail period. Counsel submits that since there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has abused the liberty granted to him under bail, his bail may either be confirmed or extended. [5] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that for a fair investigation custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary. Mr. Counsel submits that since there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has abused the liberty granted to him under bail, his bail may either be confirmed or extended. [5] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that for a fair investigation custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary. Mr. Datta, learned P.P urges the Court not to extend the period of his interim bail. [6] Perused the record including the updated case diary. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has ever misused the liberty granted to him under bail. It is not denied that after he was granted bail for an interim period, he attended the police station regularly and extended his cooperation to the investigating agency. In these circumstances, rejection of bail would not be appropriate. The period of his interim bail is further extended till 08.10.2021 under the same terms and conditions as above. The Investigating Officer may interrogate him during this period for the purpose of investigation of the case. [7] List the matter on 08.10.2021.” [3] Mr. S. Rahman, learned counsel urges the court to confirm his bail on the ground that he has meticulously complied with the conditions of bail and there is no allegation against him that he has misused the liberty granted to him in any manner. [4] Learned P.P. on the other hand submits that investigation is at the matured stage which is likely to be completed within a month. Learned P.P, therefore, submits that appearance of the petitioner before the I.O would be necessary for at least one more month. [5] I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the record. [6] In view of the given facts and circumstances, interim bail granted to the petitioner is further extended till 10.11.2021 under the same terms and conditions. [5] Since the charge sheet has been submitted and there is no allegation against the accused that he has misused his liberty granted under anticipatory bail by influencing any of the witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence, or by showing any disregard to the bail conditions or otherwise, it would not be appropriate to curtail the liberty granted to him. [6] The petitioner has been charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. [6] The petitioner has been charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Therefore, the jurisdictional committal court will now issue appropriate process against the accused in accordance with law. Protection granted to the accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C will be in force until appropriate process in accordance with law is issued by the committal court to ensure his appearance for trial. During such period accused need not comply with condition 1 & 11 of his pre arrest bail since investigation is over. [7] In terms of the above, the bail petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.