Ripan Paul @ Raja vs State Of Tripura

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J

[1] This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C for granting pre-arrest bail to Ripan Paul @ Raja who is apprehending arrest in New Capital Complex PS case No.2021 NCC 098 which has been registered for commission of offence punishable under sections 325, 382B read with section 34 IPC.

[2] The factual context of the case is as under:

Sri Basudev Saha, a club member of Kunjaban Sevak Sangha lodged a written FIR with the officer in charge of NCC police station at Agartala alleging, inter alia, that after the last Durga Puja he along with other club members including the accused had gone to Dashamighat for immersion of idol where they exchanged hot altercations on certain issues. The matter was afterwards settled among them at the intervention of the elder members of the club. They returned to their club in the afternoon after immersion of the idol. Accused along with his brother Rupak Paul and their associate Dipankar Sarkar assaulted the informant in front of their club following the earlier incident and during such assault they snatched away the gold chain and purse of the informant. The injured informant was then rescued by his brother and friends and he was taken to GBP hospital for treatment where he was given a stitch on his forehead. The aggrieved informant wanted police intervention and action against the accused persons.

[3] Based on his FIR, NCC PS case No.2021 NCC 098 dated 18.10.2021 under sections 325, 382B read with section 34 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.

[4] Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Datta, learned advocate contends that the petitioner has been booked under sections 325 IPC and section 382B which has been inserted in IPC by the Criminal Law (Tripura Amendment) Act, 2018. Counsel submits that 325 IPC is a bailable offence and section 382B provides punishment for committing theft stealthily from a person or through assault or by using criminal force causing hurt to that person or endangering his life. It is submitted by Mr. S. Datta, learned advocate that the informant as well as the accused petitioner are members of the same club and the occurrence took place following a hot altercation between them. Moreover, after the occurrence, all the club members met together and submitted a deputation to the Superintendent of Police in which they claimed that the revengeful informant lodged a false FIR against the petitioner and other club members. Counsel submits that the occurrence took place in broad day light and it was improbable that in presence of so many people the accused petitioner would be able to snatch away the gold chain and the purse of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, since the facts and circumstances of the case does not support the charge under section 382B and section 325 IPC is a bailable offence, accused need to be protected from arrest and detention by granting pre arrest bail to him.

[5] Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P who submits that the first informant has brought serious charges against the petitioner. With reference to the police statement of the first informant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, learned P.P submits that the informant has supported his FIR statement during investigation of the case and the other witnesses whose statements have been recorded by police have also supported the prosecution case. Learned P.P submits that a prima facie case having been made out against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit of pre arrest bail.

[6] Perused the entire case record and the updated case diary. Considered the submissions made at the Bar.

[7] It has surfaced from the materials placed before this court that prior to the alleged assault in front of their club, the petitioner and the first informant had hot altercation during immersion of idol after Durga Puja. The alleged occurrence took place on 17.10.2021 in the afternoon whereas the FIR was lodged on 18.10.2021 at 09.24 pm even though the police station was only 4 Km away from the place of occurrence. It is not denied that the parties had a strained relationship and all club members met the jurisdictional Superintendent of police and submitted a representation to him stating that the FIR was entirely false and it was filed by the informant to avenge his grievances against the petitioner. A detailed exposition of the prosecution case may not be appropriate at this stage.

[8] In view of the statements of the prosecution witnesses available in the case diary and other materials available on record, this court is of the view that no prima facie case under section 382B has been made out against the petitioner.

[9] Having considered the parameters laid down in this regard and the facts and circumstances of the case, accused petitioner is granted pre arrest bail. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer on the following conditions:

(i) He will appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week for the purpose of investigation.

(ii) He will abstain from influencing the witnesses of this case in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) He will not leave the State without prior permission of the Investigating Officer.

[10] The Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala may relax the conditions (i) and (iii) above in appropriate circumstances.

[11] In terms of the above, the bail petition stands disposed of. Return the case diary to Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P.