Pintu Das And Ors. vs State Of Tripura

[1] This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr.P.C. for short) has been filed for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioners namely Pintu Das, his 18 years' old son, Subrata Das and his 23 years' old wife Smt. Mithu Das.

[2] Allegations against the petitioners are that they had taken active role in the assault of Smt.Aparna Das, wife of the principal accused namely Cintu Das at her matrimonial home on 30.02.2021.

[3] Brief facts of the case are as under:

Smt. Aparna Das, wife of Cintu Das lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge of women police station at R.K.Pur, Gomati District alleging that her marriage with Chintu was solemnized about 17 years back and after marriage a daughter was born to them. After the birth of their daughter, her husband started treating her with cruelty to fulfil his demand for dowry. Her father gave cash to her husband on several occasions pursuant to his demand. Despite that he continued torturing his wife. Several meetings were held to solve their problems. But there was no improvement in their relationship. On 11.02.2021 at about 10.30 O'clock in the night, all accused persons together had beaten the informant in her matrimonial home and in consequence of their assault she received bleeding injury all over her body. Her 13 years' old daughter, noticed her father, petitioner uncle and his wife beating her mother. Having received the information, father and brother of the informant came to there and rescued the informant. The accused persons did not also spare them. They assaulted the father of the informant who also required treatment in the hospital after the occurrence. The neighbouring people appeared and transported the informant to hospital in critical condition. She required 8 stitches. Besides assaulting her, they damaged the vehicle in which her father and brother came for her rescue.

[4] Based on her FIR, R.K.Pur Women P.S. case No. 09 of 2021 dated 13.02.2021 was registered under Sections 498A, 109, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and investigation was taken up by police. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner namely Pintu Das who is the elder brother of the husband of the victim and his wife Smt.Mithu Das and their son Subrata Das have filed this application for pre arrest bail.

[5] Heard Mr.Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel submits that before the FIR was lodged by his wife, principal accused Cintu Das had also filed an FIR at the police station bringing several allegations against the relatives of his wife which was not registered at the police station. After the wife filed the FIR against him and his relatives, he submitted this FIR before the Superintendent of police, Gomati District, Udaipur and at the intervention of the SP, his FIR was registered as R.K.Pur P.S. case No. 2021/RKP/041 dated 03.03.2021 under Sections 448, 325 and 34 IPC against Sukumar Nama and Raju Nama, father and brother of the victim respectively.

[6] It is submitted by Mr.Das, learned counsel that this incident occurred between the husband and wife and no role was played by the present petitioner in the said incidence. According to Mr.Das, learned counsel, the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no ground for denying bail to them.

[7] Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP representing the State respondent.

Mr. Datta, learned PP vehemently opposes the bail application. According to Mr.Datta, learned PP, the condition of the victim is serious. She was brutally assaulted by her husband and the present petitioner at the matrimonial home on the date of occurrence. It is submitted by learned PP that the 13 years' old daughter of the victim who was in the same room with her mother at the time of occurrence witnessed the occurrence and she stated to the IO as well as before the Magistrate in her statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. that the present petitioner also took part in the assault of her mother.

[8] According to learned PP, the materials are forthcoming against the petitioner during investigation and their bail at this stage will spoil the investigation of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court to reject their bail application.

[9] In so far as the allegation against petitioner Pintu Das is concerned, I have found from the record that a strong prima facie case has been made out against him. Having perused the CD and other materials available on record, I am of the view that bail cannot be granted to petitioner Pintu Das at this stage of the case. His bail petition, therefore, stands rejected. Considering the materials available against the other 2 accused namely Subrata Das(18) and Smt. Mithu Das(23), I am of the view that these 2 petitioners may be granted pre arrest bail on the following conditions:

(i) They will not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court during the investigation without approval of the IO.

(ii) They will not try to influence the witnesses of this case in any manner whatsoever.

In the event of their arrest, the said 02 petitioners will be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO.

[10] In terms of the above, the bail petition is disposed of.

Return the CD.