Anjel Debbarma v. The State Of Tripura

Case No :AB 0000136/2015 Party Name : ANJEL DEBBARMA Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA Heard Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. In terms of the order dated 28.10.2015, Mr. Debnath, learned P.P. has produced the case diary.

This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in favour of the petitioner in connection with Salema P.S. case No.2015 SLM 027 under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no person has been named in the written ejahar to have committed the offence of murdering one Moutushi Debbarma. However, on the basis of the said written ejahar, Salema Police Station case No.2015 SLM 027 was registered. He has further submitted that subsequently one Jintu Debbarma was arrested by the investigating officer on a suspicious circumstances and in the police custody said Jintu Debbarma reportedly made a self incriminatory statement. On the basis of the said statement, certain incriminating materials were recovered by the investigating agency. That apart, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is entirely innocent and he has been implicated in this case without any basis. But from the order dated 14.10.

2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur it appears that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in the material time. It appeared further that he drove the vehicle from the place of occurrence to the hideout of the principal offender. It transpired from the case diary that the wearing apparels of the principal accused were smeared with blood and those apparels were recovered by the police. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has just crossed the age of 18 years and on that consideration, he may be enlarged on bail inasmuch as there is no evidence directly involving the petitioner. From the other side, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P.

appearing for the State has vehemently submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential for drawing up the investigation to its logical conclusion. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as on scrutiny of the materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that the pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner cannot be granted. However, the liberty would be granted to the petitioner to surrender either before the investigating agency or to the competent court. In that event, the petitioner may press the prayer for his bail when the competent court would pass the appropriate order after seeing the upto date case diary. The case diary so produced is returned.

Download Date: 8-05-2017 16:05 1/1