Souvik Nath vs State Of Tripura

S. Datta Purkayastha, J

[1] Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Subrata Sarkar, assisted by Mr. K. D. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

[2] During hearing learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta, submits that a petition for custody trial was filed on 29.12.2025 and more than one month has elapsed but still the same is pending. A copy of the said petition for custody trial is also placed before this Court.

[3] Despite a specific direction being given to all the courts to dispose of the petition for custody trial at the earliest, it appears that the said petition has been pending for more than one month.

[4] Learned Public Prosecutor will see whether said petition has been brought to the notice of the Court in due time.

[5] Anyway, in such a situation, learned senior counsel, Mr. Subrata Sarkar, submits that they are not pressing the bail petition at this stage, rather, they will participate in the hearing on the petition for custody trial and if any grievance still persists, liberty may be given to them to approach the Court again.

[6] Considered the submissions.

[7] The learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, is directed to hear and dispose of the said petition immediately without delay. Liberty as sought for by learned senior counsel, Mr. Sarkar, is also granted.

[8] The Registry will furnish the certified copy of this order to the petitioner on urgent basis, if any petition for certified copy is filed.

[9] Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage being not pressed.

[10] Return the case diary to learned Public Prosecutor. Also re-consign the Trial Court Record.

[11] Communicate a copy of this order to learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.