Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 375 (TRI)

Indrajit Ghosh v. State of Tripura

2022-09-19

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. B. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for granting pre-arrest bail of the accused person in connection with N.C.C. P.S. Case No.110 of 2022 registered under Section 379 of the IPC. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 31.07.2022 at around 2.00 am to 3.00 am and on 01.08.2022 at around 1.00 am to 2.00 am some unknown persons had stolen twelve numbers of UPS battery from four junction box located at Heritage Park locations and bus shelter junction box. 4. After the said occurrence, one written FIR was lodged by one Sri Er. Enjula Uchoi, a government employee before the New Capital Complex P.S. which was registered as N.C.C. P.S. Case No.110 of 2022 registered under Section 379 of the IPC. 5. According to the petitioner on 05.08.2022 the accused persons namely Biswajit Banik and Akash Rabi Das were arrested in connection with this case and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on 05.08.2022. The petitioner has stated that another accused namely Mantosh Roy has been arrested by the police and he was granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. Mr. B. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that only for harassing the petitioner, the police personnel is making several raids in the house of the petitioner. As the petitioner was not found, the police were making harassment to the wife of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel has submitted that in the complaint petition there is no name of any accused person and the complaint petition was lodged against some unknown miscreants. According to him, the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said case. 8. Moreover, Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is no way involved with the said alleged offence as he runs a shop where all sorts of damage waste i.e. the Junkyard is being sold and purchased. He only buys plastic bottles, newspaper, old iron etc. He did not purchase any such battery as on the days of occurrence, he was not present in the shop, he was in the tiffin shop where he was doing his work. 9. Moreover, Mr. He only buys plastic bottles, newspaper, old iron etc. He did not purchase any such battery as on the days of occurrence, he was not present in the shop, he was in the tiffin shop where he was doing his work. 9. Moreover, Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel has submitted that not a single battery have been received from the petitioners shop, it was received from the shop of Mantosh Roy whose shop is located at Golbazar whereas the petitioners shop is located at Durgachowmuhani area which is almost 5 km away from the shop of the petitioner. 10. Mr. Debbarma, learned in his usual fairness has submitted that may be the batteries were stolen but it might have been stolen by the employees of the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 11. Moreover, Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel has submitted that the wife of the petitioner is alone at home and in case the petitioner is taken into custody, the whole family along with the two children of the petitioner will face serious stringency. 12. Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel has finally submitted that one bail application being Bail Application No. 163 of 2022 was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura but the same was rejected on 25.08.2022. Finding no other alternative, the present appeal is filed. 13. On the other hand, Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the CC Cameras have been installed in the smart city in various places. After the police have arrested the two accused persons, during the investigation, those accused persons have categorically stated that the present petitioner is the prime accused. According to Mr. Datta, learned P.P., there is a racket and through the present petitioner, the batteries were collected and he is selling this to others and accordingly, one Sujit Banik, one of the associates of Indrajit Ghosh 21 batteries were already been recovered. 14 numbers of battery were yet to be recovered. According to Mr. Datta, learned P.P. those batteries were sold to the petitioner. Until and unless the present petitioner is arrested and interrogated, it is not possible to recover the batteries and the other persons who were involved in this racket. 14. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned P.P. appearing for the State. Until and unless the present petitioner is arrested and interrogated, it is not possible to recover the batteries and the other persons who were involved in this racket. 14. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned P.P. appearing for the State. In the result, this application stands dismissed.