Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., rejected an application filed for seeking pre-arrest bail whereby the petitioner was apprehending arrest registered under Sections 353,333,307 and 384 read with Section 34 IPC.

In the FIR dated 12-08-2021 informant alleged that he was going to his office for performing duty. Accused along with his associates stood on his way and attacked him with an iron rod. The accused gave several blows on his forehead with the said iron rod. Besides physically assaulting him, accused also destroyed his official papers and robbed him of a sum of Rs 7000/-.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that it would emerge from the injury report that the informant received simple injury. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the allegations of the informant that the accused gave repeated blows with an iron rod on his fore head was entirely false because had it been so, he would have received grievous injuries.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused attacked the informant deliberately with deadly weapon when he was in the discharge of his official duty. He further submitted that the informant and the neighbouring people who witnessed the occurrence had consistently supported the allegations. It was contended that arrest and detention of the accused was necessary to ascertain the motive of the crime and book his associates because the FIR itself would show that the accused was being accompanied by his associates while committing the said offence.

The Court noted that from the injury report of the informant that after the alleged assault, he was treated in Gomati District hospital where doctor found swelling injuries on his neck, fore arm and other parts of his body and cut injuries were also found on his forehead and left elbow which supports the allegation that blows were inflicted by the accused on those parts of his body.

The Court was of the view that allegations against the accused were serious and sufficient incriminating materials supporting those allegations were available on record. Pre arrest bail of the accused at this stage is likely to impair a fair investigation.

The Court rejecting the application held that it would not be appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused.[Pran Krishna Das v. State of Tripura, 2021 SCC OnLine Tri 468, decided on 15-09-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.