High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 TP CK 0022

Moni Begam And Ors vs State Of Tripura

Tripura High Court · Decided on 24 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arindam Lodh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail No. 91 Of 2020

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

6 paragraphs · 262 words

Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State respondent through video-conferencing.

The FIR named accused-person namely 1) Smt. Moni Begam, wife of Majir Hossen, resident of West Chandrapur, A/W/C Baruakandi, Chandrapur, Dharmanagar, District, North Tripura, 2) Ayesha Khatun @ Nibedita Chakma, wife of Lailu Miah, resident of West Chandrapur, A/W/C Baruakandi Chandarapur, Dharmanagar, District North Tripura and 3) Johanora Begam, wife of Dulu Miah, resident of West Chandrapur, A/W/C Baruakandi Chandarapur, Dharmanagar, District North Tripura have approached this Court with a petition for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

On earlier occasion also they had approached this Court along with other two accused-persons for granting anticipatory bail and that petition was numbered as AB 37 of 2020 wherein this Court vide order dated 06.05.2020 directed the accused-petitioners to surrender before the Elaka Magistrate.

Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that out of those five petitioners, two petitioners had surrendered before the Court, but, the present three accused-persons did not surrender. In view of that, I am of the opinion that order dated 06.05.2020 has to be complied with by the present accused-persons.

Accordingly, the present petitioners are directed to surrender before the Elaka Magistrate in terms of the order dated 06.05.2020 and the learned Magistrate shall decide the bail application keeping in view the orders passed by this Court on 06.05.2020 and 12.06.2020 and also considering the allegation, particularly levelled against the accused-persons.

With the aforesaid direction and observation, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.