Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 391 (TRI)

Shipra Biswas (Das) v. State of Tripura

2022-10-25

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C for short) for granting bail to accused Biplab Biswas who is an FIR named accused in Bodhjungnagar P.S. case No. 2022 BJN 035 registered under Sections 326, 307, 385, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard Mr. S.Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused. Also heard Mr. R.Datta, learned PP, appearing for the State respondent along with Mr.S.Debnath, learned Addl.PP. 3. The FIR was filed by Smt.Lovely Roy Shil, wife of Sri Dipak Shil, on 03.08.2022 with the Officer-In-Charge of Bodhjung Nagar Police Station alleging, inter alia, that her husband Dipak Shil, a contractor, was assaulted by the present accused along with his associates while he was supervising the road maintenance work at Banikya Chowmuhani, Agartala. It has been alleged by the wife of the injured contractor that the present accused and his associates demanded money from her husband. When he refused to pay the money to them, the present accused along with his associates attacked him with hammer, dao, rod and knife and the present accused stabbed him with a knife. Following the registration of the case, the accused was arrested and taken into custody. It appears from the record that the accused filed application for bail in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala on 04.08.2022 which was rejected by the learned CJM. Thereafter, bail application was also filed by the accused before the learned Sessions Judge which was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 29.09.2022 after perusal of the case diary. 4. Mr.Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused refers to the injury report of the husband of the informant at page 16 of the petition and submits that the injury report clearly indicates that the stab wound was measuring 2 cm/ 1.5 cm (muscle depth)on the left upper chest 4.5 cm below the left clavicle in left mid clavicular line. Mr.Lodh, learned counsel, therefore, submits that the injury indicates that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the injured and therefore, it does not attract the charge of Section 307 IPC. Counsel also contends that the injury cannot be termed as grievous hurt for application of Section 326 IPC to the case. Mr.Lodh, learned counsel, therefore, submits that the injury indicates that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the injured and therefore, it does not attract the charge of Section 307 IPC. Counsel also contends that the injury cannot be termed as grievous hurt for application of Section 326 IPC to the case. Further submission on behalf of the accused is that in the present circumstances, statutory period for completion of investigation as provided under the law is 90 days. In this case, accused is in custody for 82 days and the investigating agency is yet to complete the investigation. Counsel contends that the accused is an innocent person who has fallen victim to political rivalry and therefore, this court may consider for granting bail to him under any condition. 5. Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP, on the other hand, submits that accused is not entitled to bail at this stage of investigation in view of his criminal antecedents and the incriminating materials available against him in the case diary. Mr.Datta, learned PP submits that during investigation it has been revealed that in the past accused got involved in 6(six) cases involving serious charges apart from his preventive detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Counsel submits that the statement of the victim clearly indicates that accused attacked him with his associates with deadly weapons with a clear intention of killing him. Moreover, associates of the accused are yet to be brought to book. To ensure free and fair investigation, counsel urges the court for rejecting the bail application of the accused. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the case diary. It is true that the accused is in custody for a period of 82 days. One of the parameters for consideration of bail is the antecedent of the accused. The case record reveals that accused was involved in several other criminal cases involving various charges under the Indian Penal Code. In the present context, the injury report clearly indicates that the injured had a stab wound in his chest which is relatable to the FIR filed by his wife. This apart, eye witness version available in the CD supports the prosecution case. As such there is a prima facie case against the accused. In the present context, the injury report clearly indicates that the injured had a stab wound in his chest which is relatable to the FIR filed by his wife. This apart, eye witness version available in the CD supports the prosecution case. As such there is a prima facie case against the accused. His associates are yet to be brought to book. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the accused. 7. Therefore, the bail application of the accused stands rejected and the matter stands disposed of. Return the CD forthwith.