LAWS(TRIP)-2025-5-6

BAPI ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On May 22, 2025
Bapi Roy Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This pre-arrest bail application is filed under Sec. 482(1) of BNSS for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with East Agartala Women PS Case No.010 of 2025 (2025 WEA 010) under Sec. 329/76/109 of BNS, 2023 with added Sec. 69 of BNS, 2023. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Lodh, appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant and also heard Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta, appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

(2.) Taking part in the hearing, Learned defence counsel first of all drawn the attention of the Court that on the alleged day of incident the informant party of this case severely assaulted the applicant for which he sustained fatal injuries and accordingly, he was compelled to attend AGMC and GBP Hospital and on 5/3/2025 his wife laid one FIR to OC, East Agartala PS but no case was registered. Thereafter, the wife of the applicant submitted one complaint to SP, West narrating all these things. But inspite of that no action was taken by police. Finally as per direction of the Court, today a report has submitted by the police authority stating that no case has been made out. Learned Counsel, Mr. Lodh referring the same submitted that in view of the provision provided under Sec. 173 (4) of BNSS there is no scope on the part of SP to call for a report without registering any case since the offence disclosed commission of cognizable offence.

(3.) Learned Counsel, Mr. Lodh further submitted that initially on the basis of FIR laid by one Bishal Saha on 27/2/2025 the case was registered under Sec. 329/76/109 of BNS but on bare perusal of the same it appears no offence reveals punishable under Sec. 109 of BNS. But surprisingly to develop the prosecution case the prosecution came with a new story and added Sec. 69 of BNS which is also contrary to the prosecution case and further submitted that since there are material contradictions which emerges from the submission of the prosecution. So there is no scope to refuse the pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused-applicant and urged for granting pre-arrest bail.