1 4
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB No.55 of 2024
Siddhartha Ghosh
-----Applicant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
-----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.,
Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
HON’BLE
Order
25/10/2024
Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Bhaumik is present for the applicant
and Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta along with Learned Addl. P.P., Mr.
S. Ghosh are present on behalf of the State-respondent.
In pursuance of the earlier order dated 18.10.2024, Learned
P.P. has produced this Case Diary.
This pre-arrest bail application is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. for allowing the petitioner to go on bail in connection with
Airport PS case No.50 of 2023.
In course of hearing of argument, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner first of all drawn the attention of the Court that this
present case has been registered in the year 2023 and by this
time almost all the accused persons have been released on bail
excepting this present petitioner. This petitioner was acted on
good faith on behalf of the purchaser and he drafted the alleged
deed in question and identified on the basis of documents
produced by the executant and based on good faith, he has
performed the job and there is no allegation that as a deed writer
for a considerable long period, he has earlier committed any such
type of offence and if at this stage, he is taken into custody and is
2 4
Page of
sent to jail for investigation, in that case, his entire carrier would
be spoiled and his professional carrier would be seriously
prejudiced. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel that the
section on the basis of which this case has been registered against
the present petitioner in no way attracts his involvement with the
alleged offence. Meanwhile, the IO has completed the maximum
part of investigation. So, his detention is not at all required at this
stage for the sake of investigation. So, Learned Counsel in
summing up urged for releasing him on pre-arrest bail in any
condition.
On the other hand, Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta assisted by
Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. S. Ghosh strongly objected the submission
made by Learned Counsel and submitted that this present
petitioner is the main accused who conspired the entire episode.
He not only drafted the alleged sale deed but also identified the
executant of the second deed knowing the same to be a fake
person and furthermore, he has not come before the Court with
clean hands and suppressed the fact of another application
pending before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, West
Tripura, Agartala and Learned P.P. also submitted that if he is
released on bail then the investigation of the case will be
tampered. So, for the sake of investigation, this application for
bail be rejected.
I have heard both the sides at length and perused the record
of the Learned Court below and also gone through the Case Diary
produced by the IO through Learned P.P.
It is the admitted position that a civil dispute is going on
amongst the rival parties.
3 4
Page of
The allegation in the FIR laid by the informant, was that, the
complainant and his wife purchased the suit land in lieu of
consideration money from one Smt. Sharmila Banerjee and
started possessing the same. Later on, one day the accused Gita
Rani Das associated by the other accused persons forcefully tried
to disposses them from the suit land stating that the original
executant has executed a sale deed in her favour. So, she is the
lawful owner of the suit land. Accordingly, the informant enquired
the matter and could know that after the purchase of the suit land
by him and his wife somehow the principle accused Gita Rani
Ghosh along with others have managed to procure another sale
deed showing false personification of original executant Sharmila
Banerjee but said Sharmila Banerjee after the execution of the
deed in favour of the informant never came to Agartala nor made
any second deed in favour of any persons and on the basis of that,
this present case is registered.
The investigation of the case is in progress. It is on record
that the principle accused and other have already been granted
bail. It is also on record that by this time this present petitioner
approached before the learned Sessions Court twice for granting
pre-arrest bail that was rejected by the Learned Sessions Court
and there is evidence on record that at the instance of this present
petitioner, the subsequent deed was prepared and he identified a
person who was not the original executant who initially sold the
suit land to the informant of the case.
So, situated thus considering the materials on record, the
prima facie involvement of the accused petitioner cannot be ruled
out at this stage. So, I think for the sake of proper investigation,
the I.O. should be given the liberty to investigate the case
4 4
Page of
properly to unearth the truth. So, considering the materials on
record at this stage, I do not find any scope to consider the pre-
arrest bail application filed by the petitioner and the same is
accordingly stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Thus, the bail
application stands disposed of.
Send back the LCR along with a copy of this order and also
return back the Case Diary to I.O. along with a copy of this order
through Learned P.P.
JUDGE
MOUMITA
Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA
Date: 2024.10.25 16:45:36 +05'30'
DATTA
Deepshikha