Tripura High Court
BA/115/2025 of Sri Sattar Miah on behalf of accused Md Selim Ahammed Vs The State of Tripura on 19 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA I.A.01 of 2026 In BA No.115 of 2025 (D/O) Sri Sattar Miah, S/o Habil Miah, Vill-Jalpara, Rangamatiya, P.O.: Khedabari, P.S.: Sonamura, District: Sepahijala, State: Tripura. ----Applicant(s) For and on behalf of the accused in custody Md. Selim Ahammed, S/o Late
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A.01 of 2026
In
BA No.115 of 2025 (D/O)
Sri Sattar Miah,
S/o Habil Miah,
Vill-Jalpara, Rangamatiya,
P.O.: Khedabari, P.S.: Sonamura,
District: Sepahijala, State: Tripura.
----Applicant(s)
For and on behalf of the accused in custody Md. Selim Ahammed, S/o Late Mukbul Hossain, Resident of Saheb Sardar, P.S.(Hazrat Para), P.S.:Kotwali, District:Cumilla, Bangladesh.
----Accused Person(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s)
:
Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
03/02/2026
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal appearing on behalf of the accused person in custody. Also heard Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha appearing on behalf of the respondent- State.
This application is filed by the applicant for modification of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by this Court in connection with BA No.115 of 2025.
By the said order this Court partly modified the order dated 04.09.2025 and directed that the accused in custody may be released on bail on his execution of bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount out of whom one surety must be a public servant i.d. to remain in J/C as before. The said order was duly communicated to the accused in custody and also to the Learned Court below. The case is now posted for appearance of PWs in the month of June, 2026.
Learned Counsel for the accused person in custody at the time of hearing submitted that by exercising the inherent power, the order passed by this Court may be modified as because the accused in custody is not in a position to fulfill the conditions of bail granted to him.
On the other hand, Learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submitted that in the erstwhile Cr.P.C. or in the BNSS there is no scope for reviewing the order passed by this Court.
Furthermore, Learned Counsel for the accused person in custody failed to satisfy the Court showing any legal provision to consider the present application for modification of the earlier order.
I also agree with the submissions advanced by Learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent-State. Also, I find no scope to consider the present interlocutory application filed by the applicant/accused in custody.
Accordingly, the same stands rejected being devoid of merit. The case is thus disposed of.
JUDGE
Snigdha SNIGDHA DAS Digitally signed by SNIGDHA DAS Date: 2026.02.03 17:20:34 +05'30'