Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 99 (TRI)

Khela Begam 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 Mst. Khela Begam and Mst. Samia Begam have approached this Court for pre arrest bail by filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C). [2] The factual background of the case is as under: The 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 accused Manfar Ali and his brother Akram Uddin trespassed into the house of the informant in absence of the male members of her house and outraged her modesty by trying to disrobe her. They also assaulted the grandmother of her husband who was at home at that time and after assaulting the old lady they dragged the first 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. At that time the present accused petitioners Mst. Khela Begam and Mst. Somia Begam also joined them in committing assault on the first informant. [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 accused petitioners and the case was taken up for investigation. [4] Apprehending arrest in the case the petitioners, both of whom are woman, seek their 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. Alik Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that both the petitioners are women and in view of the nature of the offence and the punishment prescribed therefor, they are entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail. [7] According to Mr.Das, learned counsel, the petitioners have been implicated in the case as a result of the animosity of the complainant towards them. Counsel of the petitioners submits that in view of the allegations contained in the FIR and the materials available on record, there is no justification of their arrest and detention. Counsel, therefore, urges for their release on pre-arrest bail. Counsel of the petitioners submits that in view of the allegations contained in the FIR and the materials available on record, there is no justification of their arrest and detention. Counsel, therefore, urges for their release on pre-arrest bail. [8] Learned PP, fairly submits that both the petitioners being women, pre-arrest bail may be granted to them in view of the materials available on record. Learned PP, however, urges the court to give liberty to investigating agency to interrogate the petitioners as and when necessary. [9] Perused the materials placed before the court including the case diary. Considered the submissions of counsel appearing for the parties. [10] In view of the nature of allegations brought by the informant and materials collected during investigation, this court is of the view that custodial immunity may be extended in favour of the petitioners by granting pre-arrest bail to them. [11] Accordingly, in the event of their arrest, both the petitioners will be released on bail on their furnishing their bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the IO. The investigating agency shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in accordance with law as and when required for the purpose of investigation. Inform the IO accordingly. In terms of the above, the petition is disposed of.