WAHID ALI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant Wahid Ali in connection with Irani PS Case No.08/2025 under Sec. 3 of Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and Sec. 249(C) of BNS, 2023 read with Sec. 14(a) and 14(c) of Foreigners Act, 1946. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. N. Das appearing on behalf of the applicant. Also heard Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta along with Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

(2.) Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicant first of all drawn the attention of the Court referring the contents of the FIR and submitted that on the basis of the FIR laid by one Ravindra Pratap Singh, AC, Coy Commander, 'B' Coy 199 BSF, this case was registered against one Nirmal Malakar and others. He further submitted that the applicant is running one furniture shop wherein he used to engage so many persons as labourers for manufacturing of furniture and this applicant is no way involved with the alleged prosecution and furthermore in the FIR the name of the alleged accused was shown as Vahid Mia but the present applicant is named as Wahid Ali but the police in connection with investigation of this case called him at PS and tried to harass him for which under compelling circumstances this anticipatory bail application is preferred by him. Learned Counsel further submitted that initially he also filed another anticipatory bail application to the Court of Additional Sessions, Kailashahar, Unakoti District and Learned Addl. Sessions Judge by order dtd. 23/4/2025 passed in Crl. Misc. No.15 of 2025 arising out of Irani PS Case No.8 of 2025 has been pleased to reject the pre-arrest bail application of the applicant and under compelling circumstances this present petition is being filed by him.

(3.) On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent in pursuance of the earlier order of the Court has produced the CD and submitted that there is/are sufficient materials showing implication of the applicant with the alleged offence and from the statements of the witnesses it reveals that this present applicant assisted the principal accused and also allowed him to discharge his duties as a carpenter to his furniture shop. So at this stage his involvement cannot be ruled out and urged for rejection of the bail application. Considered.