BARUN DUTTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the accused Shri Barun Dutta and Shri Ranjit Dednath. The bail application was filed in this Court on 24.7.1995 and a direction was given to the police to produce the case diary. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that because of A.D.C. election police were busy with the election duty and to maintain law and order situation and that is why the case diary has not been made available to the Court today. The statement of learned Public Prosecutor is reasonable. Learned counsel appearing for the two accused-petitioners submits that the two accused persons have been involved in this rape case out of political rivalry. Mr. Bhowmik, further states that the accused No, 2 is an employee of the Electricity department, Govt. of Tripura, Mr. Bhowmik further submits that there is no reason for a lady who is alleged to have been raped to know the names of the accused persons unless she has been tutored by some political rivals. I have perused the F.I.R. and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The 164 statement disclose that the father of accused Barun Dutta is the chairman of a particular political party. Mr. Bhowmik submits that name of one Manik Majumder has been reflected in the 164 statement has also political affiliation. The lady who has been raped has mentioned the name of both the accused in the F.I.R. A case of rape has got no relevance with any political affair. Mr. Bhowmik has relied upon the case of Chellappan Mohandas and Ors -Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 259 to show that an accused is entitled to bail if there is any political rivalry. This is not a case of bail but this is an appeal against conviction. The stage has not as yet reached and as such at this stage 1 am unable to go by the decision of the Apex Court as the stage of both the cases are clearly distinguishable. Such being the position, the prayer for bail in respect of both the accused persons is rejected. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners is given liberty to file fresh bail application, if so advised.