Biswajit Palit, J
Learned Counsel, Mr. B. Deb and Learned Counsel, Mr. V. Ghosh are present for the accused in custody and Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta and Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. S. Ghosh are also present on behalf of the State-respondent. Learned Counsel Mr. K. Nath and Mr. D. Paul have appeared on behalf of the de facto complainant Smt. Mitra Das Sardar Dey by executing one Vakalatnama. Keep the same with the record.
As per earlier order dated 18.10.2024, Learned P.P. has produced the Case Diary.
This bail application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Learned J. M. 1st Class, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura in connection with R.K. Pur P.S. case No.81 of 2024.
Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner in custody first of all drawn the attention of the Court that the present petitioner in custody was not FIR named but he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the alleged incident took place on 08.08.2024 and police recovered the deceased victim on that day and thereafter he was produced before the Court of Learned POCSO Judge, from where he was released on bail and thereafter for the purpose of his treatment, he was referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital, Agartala from Udaipur wherein he succumbed to death and after 2-3 days, the informant laid the FIR. But there was not a single whisper showing implication of the present accused with the alleged offence and furthermore, in the forwarding report of IO no incriminating materials revealed against the accused and in the mean time, two persons namely Jayanta Saha, who was one of the prime accused and Smt. Sutapa Debnath have already been granted bail by this High Court. Furthermore, referring Annexure-5 and 6, Learned Counsel drawn the attention of this Court that from the medical evidence on record, it also appears that after giving preliminary treatment, he was discharged from the Tripura Sundari Sub-Divisional Hospital at Udaipur on 09.08.2024 but later on, he was expired due to his physical ailments like Liver Cirrhosis but the present accused in custody was in no way involved with the offence. So, Learned Counsel finally urged for allowing the custody accused to go on bail in any condition.
On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that although the accused was not FIR named but in the Case Diary, there are sufficient materials against the person in custody showing his implication with the alleged offence. So, Learned P.P. urged for dismissal of the bail application considering the nature of crime.
Further, Learned Counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that due to mental agony, the complainant did not laid the FIR on time but there is enough material against the accused showing his implication with the alleged crime. So, Learned Counsel urged for dismissal of the bail application.
I have heard Learned Counsel of both the sides at length and also gone through the relevant papers connected with the bail application and the case diary produced by the Learned P.P.
The allegation in the FIR, in short, was that 08.08.2024 at about 06.30 pm the accused Sankar Karmakar with a pre plan informed the husband of the complainant to visit to his house and on bonafide belief her husband went to the residence of said accused Sankar Karmakar and as soon as he reached there all the FIR named accused persons started assaulting upon the deceased victim with lethal weapon in his vital part of the body and being informed by the neighbouring person of the locality, police recovered the husband of the complainant with half dead condition and brought him to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Udaipur. Considering the gravity of injury, the medical officer referred her husband to Gomati District Hospital and the medical officer of Gomati District Hospital referred her husband to AGMC and GBP Hospital as the injury was serious and as per advice of Gomati District Hospital, he was brought to AGMC and GBP Hospital where the victim was declared as dead. On the basis of FIR the present case was registered and in course of investigation, the accused in custody was arrested by IO and produced before the Learned Court below.
It is the admitted position that the informant i.e. the de facto complainant was not present to the PO at the time of alleged occurrence of offence.
I have also perused the Case Diary very carefully including the post-mortem examination report of the deceased as well as the statement of witnesses recorded by IO in course of investigation. After going through the relevant prosecution papers, it appears that due to physical assault the deceased victim sustained fatal injury on his person and he ultimately succumbed to death at Agartala. From the statement of witnesses, it is very much clear that the present accused in custody was also one of the persons who was present to the PO and took part in the commission of offence and due to his act along with others, the victim sustained injuries and ultimately expired. The accused is in custody on and from 17.08.2024. However, the investigation of the case is in progress.
So, considering the materials on record at this stage, I do not find any scope to release the accused on bail at this stage. Hence, the bail application stands rejected. The accused is to remain in J/C as before.
Send back the LCR along with a copy of this order and also return back the Case Diary to I.O. along with a copy of this order through Learned P.P.
