Chandana Das Bhowmik vs State Of Tripura

Biswajit Palit, J

This bail application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS for releasing of the accused in custody namely Sri Shibu Bhowmik who is lodging in jail in connection with RK Pur PS Case No.46 of 2025 under Section 281/105 of BNS along with Section 184/187 of MV Act.

Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. K. Biswas assisted by Mr. P. Biswas appearing on behalf of the accused in custody and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State. As ordered earlier the CD has been produced today. By this time we have also received the LC record.

Taking part in the hearing Learned Senior Counsel first of all has drawn the attention of this court referring the contents of the FIR and submitted that although the case is registered under Section 281/105 of BNS but there is no ingredients in the FIR which attracts the provision of Section 105 of BNS rather to the extent Section 106 of BNS may be applicable in this case. But Learned courts below could not appreciate the same and rejected the bail applications and furthermore the accused is in custody on and from 23.03.2025. So considering the period of detention of the accused in custody he urged for allowing the accused to go on bail in any condition.

On the other hand, Learned P.P. strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that there was knowledge to commit the crime by the accused and as such Section 105 of BNS is very much applicable in this case and he relied upon the citation of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Ramchandra Rabidas alias Ratan Rabidas reported in (2019) 10 SCC 75 wherein in para Nos.5.13 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

“5.13 When a person drives a vehicle so recklessly, rashly or negligently that it causes the death of a person, and of which he had knowledge as a reasonable man, that such act was dangerous enough to cause death, he may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence, and may held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.”

Referring the same he submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the evidence on record of the prosecution supports the case of the prosecution under Section 105 of BNS and urged for rejecting the bail application.

Here in the case at hand the gist of the prosecution in short is that on 22.03.2025 one Prasenjit Roy laid an FIR to O.C. RK Pur PS alleging inter alia that on that day his father late Bikash Kumar Roy was going to pick up his niece from Abacus Centre, situated opposite to Udaipur Girls’ school and his father and his niece are aged about 62 years and 10 years respectively. Before reaching to that centre his father who was using his scooty bearing registration No.TR03 F7 013 that time a unknown bus hit him when he was at Agriculture Chowmuhoni at around 3.00 p.m. The unknown bus was coming toward Udaipur from Agartala. Due to that hit on his father scooty his father exhaled his last breath and died on the spot. It was further submitted that the accident occurred due to the rush and negligence driving of the driver of the unknown bus, who had knowledge that reckless driving likely to cause death. On the basis of that FIR the case was registered and in course of investigation the accused was produced under arrest before the Court on 23.03.2025.

For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer herein below the provision of Section 105 and 106 of BNS and also Section 100 of BNS:

Section 105 and 106 of BNS

“105. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.-Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Causing death by negligence.-(1) Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, “registered medical practitioner” means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification recognized under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019(30 of 2019) and whose name has been entered in the National Medical Register or a State Medical Register under that Act.

(2) Whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 100 of BNS

“100. Culpable homicide.- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations:

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Explanation 1.: A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2.: Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3.: The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.”

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 105 of IPC there should be knowledge about the commission of offence by the alleged offender as required under Section 100 of BNS.

I have perused the CD. From the CD I do not find any material at this stage and from the statement of the witnesses so far collected by I.O. up to this stage of investigation nowhere I find that the accused had knowledge to commit the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS and although the MVI report revealed that there was no mechanical disorder of the vehicle. I have also gone through the citation referred by Learned P.P. Hon’ble the Apex Court ultimately quashed the case and the facts of this case and the fact of that case are distinguishable in facts. As such I do not find any scope to rely upon the same at this stage. So considering all, I am inclined to release the accused on interim bail till 30.05.2025 of his execution of bond of Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Learned Jurisdiction Court in default to remain in J/C as before with condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission nor he shall make any attempt to temper evidence on record of the prosecution during that period.

Send down the LCR to the Learned court below along with a copy of this order.

Return back the CD to the I.O. through Learned P.P. along with a copy of this order.

Learned P.P. be asked to produce the CD on the next date i.e. on 30.05.2025. Send back the record to the Court again with direction to reproduce it on 30.05.2025.

List this matter on 30.05.2025.