SRI ROHIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF TRIPURA HON''BLE MR JUSTICE S.C.DAS This is a petition under Secti

Legal Reasoning

Party Name : SRI ROHIT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA HON''BLE MR JUSTICE S.C.DAS This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for a direction to release the accused-petitioner, Shri Rohit Singh on bail, in the event of his arrest, in connection with Women P.S., District – Raipur, Case No. 39 of 2013 registered under Section 498 (A) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar for the respondent. It is inter alia stated in the bail application that the petitioner Rohit Singh, Son of Shri Narendra Singh is a permanent resident of 57C/12M/1 Harawara, P.O. Dhoomanganj, P.S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. He has been working as an Assistant Commandant of BSF and at present posted at Fatikchera BSF Camp in the State of Tripura. It is further stated in the bail application that wife of the accused-petitioner lodged an F.I.R before the O.C., Women P.S. at District – Raipur alleging cruelty exercised on her by the accused-petitioner and others and Superintendent of Police, Raipur has passed an order to send one Head Constable and a Constable to cause arrest of the accused and therefore the accused-petitioner apprehending arrest at any moment. A copy of the order dated 30.05.2013 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur is annexed as Annexure-P2. A copy of the F.I.R. has also been annexed as Annexure-P1. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Deb that the accused-petitioner, in course of his employment, at present, working in Tripura under the jurisdiction of this Court posted at Fatikchera BSF Camp. He is a permanent resident of Allahabad but, presently, in course of his service residing in Tripura. The police case has been registered against him at Raipur and he is reasonably apprehending arrest here in Tripura. He is ready to appear before the appropriate court at Raipur in connection with the criminal case instituted against him by his wife. But, for the time being, a transit bail may be granted to him facilitating to appear before the appropriate court at Raipur. If he is arrested in the mean time, he will be harassed unnecessarily and in such an eventuality he will suffer irreparable loss. In support of his contention, learned counsel, Mr. Deb has referred a number of decisions of different High Courts. One of those reference is of the case between Sachindra Mahawar And Ors. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. reported in 2000 CriLJ 637 which is an elaborate judgment passed by His Lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and in a similar situation, pre-arrest bail was granted for four weeks facilitating the accused-petitioner to appear before the appropriate Court and pray for bail. In Para 6 of the aforesaid judgment, the Court has observed:- “6. …..In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that an order can be passed by the Court where arrest is apprehended by the accused to pass an ad interim order with a direction to move the competent Court where the offence has been registered or committed. This appears to be a balanced view and would be within the parameters of law. I may humbly state here that the Division Bench of this Court has taken this view, and I am in respectful agreement with the same, and hence, the prayer by the Government Advocate for a reference to a larger Bench does not merit consideration. However, I may add that the application for grant of bail would depend upon the nature of allegations made against the accused. It would be incumbent on the accused to satisfy the Court that he permanently resides within the territory of the State and there is imminent danger of he being arrested. There should be no cloud about his domicile and cognizance shall not be taken of temporary abode. The apprehension must be real and it must be indicative of the fact that it cannot brook any delay and situation warrants emergent attention. The application of the accused should allude to the relevant facts so that the Court would be in a position to appreciate the facts in proper perspective and be in a position to exercise discretion. That apart, jurisdiction should not be exercised in a routine manner or for the asking. In Para 8 of the judgment, the Court observed:- “8. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, there remains no iota of doubt that the individual liberty has to be respected and simultaneously the investigation has to take its course. As has been stated earlier a balanced view has to be adopted. A reconciliation has to be done between social restraint and individual liberty. True it is, in the matter of jurisdiction, there cannot be chimerical approach but if the law confers such powers that should not be overlooked or brushed aside on the ground of pragmatic inconvenience and practical difficulty. A compromise between the two has to be established. It should not be forgotten that once honour is lost it is unredeemable and unreclaimable like a word, once spoken cannot be recalled. To put it in the language of Horace: "Etsemel emissum volat irrevocable verbum". An accused cannot be left to be "stars' tennis-balls, struck and bandied". It is to be borne in mind that no human institution can be perfect and therefore, efforts ought to be made so that, no police officer can say that he is the law; no prosecutor can assume the role of persecutor; no informant can celebrate over malicious prosecution; and a balance is struck between the law and human nature; society and individual; and effective prosecution and personal liberty.” Learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar has fairly submitted that under the given facts and circumstances, if a transit bail is granted for four weeks to the accused, to appear before the appropriate court and pray for bail, he has no objection. I am in full agreement with the above observation of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sachindra Mahawar (supra). Though the case has been registered outside the jurisdiction of this Court, since the petitioner has been residing herein, in the course of his service and there is a reasonable apprehension for the petitioner of being arrested here, I think, an interim arrangement of bail facilitating the petitioner may be passed for fair ends of justice. Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the practical difficulty and inconvenience, the prayer for transit bail of the accused-petitioner Shri Rohit Singh is allowed. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the accused-petitioner, Shri Rohit Singh be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in connection with Women P.S., District – Raipur, Case No. 39 of 2013 registered under Section 498 (A) read with Section 34 of I.P.C., on his execution of a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that he should approach the appropriate court at Raipur within four weeks from today. This order shall remain in force for four weeks and it shall automatically stand cancelled after expiry of the said period. It is also directed that during this period of four weeks, he should keep himself available before the I.O., if so required and should not interfere with the investigation. A copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar for the State-respondent. The bail application accordingly, stands disposed of. Download Date: 8-05-2017 16:05 1/1