High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 07 TP CK 0022

Angita Dey On Behalf Of Tanmoy Dey (Accused) vs State Of Tripura

Tripura High Court · Decided on 18 July 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arindam Lodh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application 40 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 382 words

Arindam Lodh, J

This is a bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of CrPC for granting bail to the accused Tanmoy Dey who has been arrested in connection with West Agartala Women P.S. Case No.21/2024 registered under Sections 376/506 of IPC.

Heard Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

The fact of the case is that a complaint had been lodged by the victim (name withheld) before the O.C., Airport P.S. alleging that she was raped by the accused Tanmoy Dey on 24-04-2024 at Hotel Grand Jury, Usha Bazar at 2 pm. Subsequently, on the basis of such complaint West Agartala Women PS Case No.21/2024 was registered against the said accused.

It is contended by Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the accused has falsely been implicated with the instant case. There was a love affair between the complainant and the accused. Out of that love affair, they visited so many places and even the complainant herself accompanied him to a hotel at Ushabazar, Agartala. It is also stated that the victim has visited a tourist place at ‘Narikel Kunja’, Dhalai Tripura. The documents enclosed with the application show that after the incident on 24.04.2024 when she alleged of sexual assault, she visited ‘Narikel Kunja’ and stayed there. The entry tickets and other documents of ‘Narikel Kunja Resort’ have also been enclosed with this bail application.

On overall considerations of the matter, in my opinion, this is a fit case for granting bail to the accused on the following grounds:

(i) The complainant attains the age of majority;

(ii) The accused has been in custody for more than 66 days;

(iii) The facts and circumstances revealed that she was always a consenting party to develop physical relationship between her and the accused; and

(iv) The ingredients of Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, prima facie, are absent.

In the light of above observations, I direct that the accused Tanmoy Dey shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

With the above directions, the instant bail application stands allowed and disposed of.