AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This present bail application has been filed under Section 483(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the accused person in connection with the PR. Bari P.S. Case No.30/2024, dated 13.07.2024 corresponding case No. S.T.(Type-1) 35 of 2024 before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belonia, Tripura under Section 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
The fact of the case according to the prosecution is that the victim was discovered in an injured condition in the Chottakhola Maitri Park area on 12.07.2024 by the police personnel while on mobile patrolling duty. Following the same, a suo motu complaint was lodged on 13.07.2024. Subsequently, on 14.07.2024, the daughter of the deceased filed a written complaint alleging that the accused persons, had assaulted her father, who later succumbed to his injuries during treatment at G.B.P. Hospital.
Upon the culmination of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet, and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, South Tripura, Belonia, where formal charges were framed on 09.01.2025.
The record reflects a long procedural history concerning the applicants’ custody. The accused-persons initial bail plea was registered as B.A. No. 10 of 2025 which was dismissed by the subordinate Bench of this Court on 07.03.2025. Subsequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, granted bail to the accused on 25.07.2025. However, that order was set aside by the subordinate Bench of this Court on 26.09.2025 in B.A. No. 69 of 2025, with a direction to the accused to surrender. Following their surrender on 27.10.2025, contempt proceedings were initiated regarding the delayed compliance, culminating in an order dated 03.07.2026 in Contempt Case(C) No. 63 of 2025, whereby the delay was found to be substantiated and a penalty of Rs,2,000/- was imposed. In the interim, a subsequent bail application No. B.A. No.29 of 2026, was dismissed by subordinate Bench of this Court on 24.06.2026.
The applicants have now approached this Court by way of this bail application, seeking the following reliefs:-
“1.Admit this Bail Application;
2.Issue notice upon Respondent No.2;
3.Call for the lower court records and Case Diary of this case through the Public Prosecutor.
AND
After hearing both sides and meticulous gone through the entire lower court records as well as up to date case diary of this case i.e., 2024 PR Bari P.S. 30 of 2024, dated 13.07.2024, ST (Type-1) 35 OF 2024 pending before the Ld. District and Sessions Court, Belonia, Tripura, the Accused Persons may kindly be allowed to go on bail on any condition / conditions and any such order / orders Your Lordship may kindly pass in favor of Accused(s) having regard to the fact and circumstances of this.”
Heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjya, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. R. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicants as well as Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P., appearing for non-applicant-State of Tripura and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No.2.
Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the applicants contends that his client have suffered prolonged pre-trial incarceration, having remained in custody for approximately 700 days while the trial is yet to reach its conclusion. It is submitted that continued detention under these circumstances serves no fruitful purpose and effectively reduces custody to punitive incarceration for an indefinite period prior to the determination of guilt. It is further urged that there is a material change in circumstances since the rejection of the applicants’ earlier bail application (B.A. No. 29 of 2026) vide order dated 24.06.2026. Learned counsel submits that although the learned Trial Court has scheduled dates for the examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses from 01.09.2026 to 09.09.2026, the trial is unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future having regard to the substantial number of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and the current stage of the proceedings. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that long incarceration has negative effects on the physical and mental health of the accused persons
To support his argument on the long incarceration of the accused-appellant herein, learned Sr. counsel referred to the Para-15 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 titled as Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb bearing No.Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2021 decided on February 1st, 2021. The same is produced here-in-under:-
“15.This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.”
To further substantiate on this point, learned Sr. counsel also referred to Paras. 37, 39, 52, 54 and 56 of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation Agency, Jammu reported in 2026 LiveLaw(SC) 512 bearing No.SLP(Criminal) No.1090 of 2026 dated May 18th, 2026-
“37.The logic underlying all these judgments traces back to Najeeb, which is now the law of the land governing the grant of bail under the UAP Act in a situation of prolonged detention. In that context, it is noteworthy that while Gulfisha Fatima relied on Gurwinder to adopt a narrower reading of Najeeb, neither Gulfisha Fatima nor Gurwinder engage with this subsequent line of authority of case law.
39.In that spirit, we make it clear that Najeeb is binding law entitled to the protection of stare decisis. It cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by trial courts, High Courts or even by Benches of lower strength of this Court.
52.We are at the stage of considering the prayer for bail of the appellant. At this stage, it is neither desirable nor permissible to analyse and consider the merits of the accusations made against the appellant. The prosecution will have to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt in the trial. However, we have broadly noted the core charges against the appellant only with a view to contextualize the bail prayer of the appellant without expressing any opinion on the merits of those charges.
54.That being the position, we direct that appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special NIA Court may deem fit and proper. For this purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Special NIA Court as early as possible but at any rate not later than 7 days from today.
56.We are aware that this bail order has become quite long. However, we feel that it has become necessary to clarify and reiterate the legal position following K.A. Najeeb lest there be any confusion in this regard.”
On the other hand, Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P., appearing for the State submits that the main problem in granting bail to the accused persons herein is that previously when they were granted bail they threatened the complainant and for this reasons the complainant had filed for cancellation of bail. Learned P.P. further submits that examination of 32 witnesses has been completed and examination of 13 witnesses only remains and added that trial in the Court below will be concluded soon. As such, in view of the conduct of the accused persons after being released on bail on earlier occasion and considering the belated stage of the Trial process in the Court below, this present bail application be dismissed.
Mr. P Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the complainant on the very inception argued that he has the right to be heard and on the point of maintainability and for establishing his locus referred to the Principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321 titled as Jagjeet Singh and ors Vs. Ashish Mishra alias Monu and anrs., bearing No.Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022 dated April 18th 2022. This Court after perusing the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is well satisfied on the point of maintainability. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the complainant submits that when the accused herein were released on bail they threatened the complaint and the complainant has even filed an police complaint dated 10.08.2025 in this regard. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the trial in the Court below is near completed. As such, learned Sr. counsel submitted that considering the previous conduct of the accused after being released on bail and the fact that the trial before the Court below is nearly completed, the present bail application needs to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
Perusal of the records reflects that the accused-applicants herein were initially granted bail by the learned Court below in 25.07.2025. However, the same was challenged by the complainant before the subordinate Bench of this Count in B.A. No.69 of 2025. Vide order dated 26.09.2025, subordinate Bench of this Court cancelled the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court and directed the accused-applicants to surrender. Consequent thereupon, the applicants herein surrendered before concerned Court and remains in custody while the trial is actively underway. As per the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, although 31 witnesses have already been examined, 13 witnesses are yet to be examined. This Court is of the considered view that in view of the remaining volume of evidence and the stage of proceedings, conclusion of the trial before the learned Court below will still take sometime. Admittedly, there is no mentioning of names of the accused in the compliant by the defacto complainant or in the FIR. At the later stage, the names were mentioned.
Having regard to the prolonged pre-trial detention of the applicants and the remaining span of the trial as indicated here-in-above, this Court is guided by the foundational norms of the criminal jurisprudence that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception." The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment passed in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand alias Baliay, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 308, observed as under:-
"The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court."
However herein it is also worth to mention that at the initial inception when the suo motu complaint was registered and the First Information Report was drawn, the names of the present applicant/accused persons were absent and were subsequently implicated during the course of investigation upon the subsequent complaint of the daughter of the deceased. While the probative and evidentiary value of such implication though supplementary statement will fall for implication during adjudication before the learned Trial Court, this circumstance taken together with the prolong incarceration and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the above quoted Judgment in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand alias Baliay (supra), Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb(supra) and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation Agency, Jammu(supra) tilted the balance in favour toward personal liberty
The anxiety expressed by the prosecution and the complainant regarding potential tampering or intimidation of witnesses can be effectively addressed by constituting a stringent and pre-emptive reliefs. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view the applicants are eligible to be enlarged on bail.
The present bail application is accordingly allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with 2(two) sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below, subject to the following conditions:
The applicants shall immediately surrender their passport, if any, before concerned Officer of the Police Station.
The applicants shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station daily between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, attempt to intimidate, threaten, or induce any witness or the complainant, nor shall tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
The applicants will attend and cooperate with the proceeding and will not take steps for protracting the litigation.
With the above directions and observations, the present bail application stands disposed of.