AB/194/2014 of PRAN KRISHNA SUTRADHAR Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA on 19 December 2014

Arguments

Party Name : PRAN KRISHNA SUTRADHAR Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.C.DAS

Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. A. K. Bhowmik for the accused-petitioner and learned P.P.for the State-respondent.

Learned counsel Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji representing the defacto complainant isalso heard as permitted by learned P.P.

Case diary is produced. Perused the case diary.

This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying for bail of the accused- petitioner Pran Krishna Sutradhar, in the event of his arrest, in connection with BishalgarhP.S. Case No.166 of 2014, registered under Sections 148/149/447/325/384/427/436 and 354of IPC.

A similar bail application of this accused-petitioner along with some other petitioners was earlier rejected by this Court by order dated 05.12.2014, passed in connection with ABNo.183 of 2014. Today learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that an affidavit issworn by one Gopal Debnath which shows that the house gutted was an abandoned house.He has also submitted that the accused had no overt act even if it is accepted that he was amember of unlawful assembly.

On earlier occasion, after going through the case diary this Court observed that theaccused was a member of unlawful assembly which assembly ransacked the house of theinformant and gutted the hut.

Learned Sr. counsel also referred the case of Musakhan & Ors. V. State ofMaharashtra, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2566. But I find nothing to apply the ratio of thatdecision in the facts and circumstances of this case. Since there is allegation against theaccused that he was not only a sight seer but he has actively participated in ransacking thehouse, so, under such circumstances, bail prayer of the accused-petitioner stands rejected. Bail application accordingly stands disposed of.

Case diary is returned to learned P.P.