Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted when serious allegations exist, with a prima facie case established, and risks of witness tampering identified at the investigation stage.

JUDGMENT

[1] This bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) for granting pre -arrest bail to the petitioners who are FIR named accused in Kakraban P.S. case No.37 of 2021 under Sections 457 , 325, 427, 384 read with Section 34 IPC which has been registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by Smt. Sibani Chakraborty (Roy) of Rajarbag, Udaipur.

[2] The informant lodged the FIR with the Officer –incharge, of Kakraban Police Station on 12.06.2011 alleging, inter alia, that on 11.06.2011 at around 10 O’clock in the night, the petitioners broke open the gate of the dwelling house of the informant and they first entered into the Puja room of the house where they damaged the articles including the electric bulbs. Thereafter, they entered into the bed room of the elder brother of the informant and assaulted him. As a result of their assault, the elder brother of the informant received multiple injuries in his body. Allegedly, the petitioners did not even spare the old and ailing mother of the informant who came to save the life of her son. The old lady was also assaulted by the petitioners. After committing assault on the elder brother and mother of the informant, the petitioners robbed them of a cash sum of Rs.9,000/-.

[3] When the neighbouring people appeared in their house for their rescue, the petitioners left. Thereafter, the injured were taken to hospital in critical condition where they received treatment as indoor patient.

[4] Based on the FIR of said Smt. Sibani Chakraborty, the case was registered and investigation of the case was taken up. Apprehending arrest the petitioners have approached this court seeking pre arrest bail.

[5] Heard Ms.S.Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is submitted by Ms.Chakraborty, learned counsel that all the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case out of political rivalry of the informant towards the petitioners. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel argues that the investigating agency must issue notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C to the petitioners before arresting them. No notice has yet been issued to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the innocent petitioners should be protected from unnecessary arrest and detention by granting pre arrest bail to them. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court by to allow their bail petition.

[6] Mr.S.Debnath, learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the bail application. It is contended by Mr.Debnath, learned Addl. PP that the accused petitioners deliberately committed the offence. They entered into the house of their neighbour at about 10 O’clock in the night with deadly weapons and assaulted the innocent inmates of the house. They did not even spare the oldest house inmate who came to save the life of her son. It is contended by Mr.Debnath, learned Addl PP that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to know their real intention of committing the offence. Learned counsel, urges the court for rejecting the bail application.

[7] Considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the entire case record including the case diary. The investigating agency by this time has recorded the police statements of the material witnesses of the case under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is on record that after the alleged incident occurred, the injured persons were taken to the hospital in critical condition and they remained admitted in hospital over a considerable period of time. The allegations are very serious and there are materials on record supporting such allegations. The prosecution has