Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 418 (TRI)

Prabir Das v. State of Tripura

2022-12-16

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the accused petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the police in connection with Kamalpur P.S. Dhalai Tripura Case No.2022 KMP 064 under U/S 306/34 of the IPC registered against the accused petitioner on 06.11.2022. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the daughter of the complainant has been in love affairs with the accused since last two years and they were on good relationship. Suddenly, the marriage of the accused got settled at another place. When the victim asked the accused the reason why the marriage was fixed at another place, accused told the victim to die and even abused her in foul language and also informed her that the accused will not meet and he will not marry her. Not only the accused but his parents also abused the victim through mobile phone and said that if she even try to meet their son then she would killed by the outsider. The victim being unable to bear the words of the accused person and his parents, she committed suicide by hanging herself in her house on 05.11.2022 at about 12o'clock in the night. After that, a written complaint was registered by the father of the victim in connection with Kamalpur P.S. Dhalai Tripura Case No.2022 KMP 064 under U/S 306/34 of the IPC was registered against the accused petitioner and separate ejahar have been received in connection with the said case. 4. Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the FIR lodged by the complainant against the accused person is absolutely false and baseless. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel the accused is no way involved with the alleged crime and the accused has not committed any offence under Section 306 of the IPC as because according to him, the complainant having enmity with the family of the accused person and he is trying to implicate the present accused petitioner as because there was no abetment to commit suicide by the accused petitioner. Moreover, he has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the accused petitioner was posted outside Tripura as he is serving as CRPF. 5. Mr. Moreover, he has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the accused petitioner was posted outside Tripura as he is serving as CRPF. 5. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further submitted that the occurrence took place due to political rivalry and the present accused person has not committed the crime because there is no specific allegations against the present accused person in the FIR lodged by the complainant. He has further submitted that the accused petitioner has filed one anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, Dhalai Tripura but the said Judge has rejected the bail application. He has submitted that the accused person is the only earning member in his family and he is a Government employee by profession. So the applicant has urged before this court for granting anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State has strongly oppose the application of anticipatory bail. He has submitted that the accused person require more interrogation. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court directed the applicant to surrender before the lower court and move bail. The lower court shall consider the case on merits. In terms of the above, this application stands dismissed.