Shyamal Banik vs State Of Tripura

Heard Mr. H. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the State-respondent.

This is an application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with West Agartala Women PS case no. 44 of 2019 under Sections 498A/506/34 of the IPC.

Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the complainant, Smt. Jayashree Paul, is the legally married wife of the accused-petitioner. After a few days of their marriage, it became difficult for her to lead a peaceful conjugal life and as a result, she left the company of her husband i.e. accused-petitioner herein, and took shelter in her father's house. Her allegation is that, she was subjected to torture and ultimately she was driven out from his house in the year 2009. After that, she filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the court of learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, granted maintenance allowance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month vide order dated 07.07.2014.

Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has further submitted that in the year 2017, the husband i.e. the accused-petitioner herein, filed a petition seeking divorce before the Family Judge, Court no.1, West Tripura, Agartala and the said case was registered as T.S. (Divorce) 333 of 2017 which is still pending.

Mr. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this court. From the statement of the complainant-wife, I find that the allegations levelled against the husband, accused-petitioner herein, are cryptic and vague. There is no specific date mentioned in the FIR when she was tortured for dowry. It is the specific statement of the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner that after 2009, the wife-complainant never returned back to the house of the husband, accused-petitioner herein and from the case diary, I find support to this submission.

In my considered view, it is a fit case to release the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is ordered that, in the event of arrest, the accused-petitioner, namely, Shyamal Banik, shall be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

With this observation and direction, the instant application stands allowed and disposed of.

Return back the case diary.