Pre-arrest bail requires careful consideration of the severity of charges and potential impact on ongoing investigations, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining evidentiary integrity.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.- This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C which has been filed for granting pre arrest bail to petitioner Pran Krishna Das who is apprehending arrest in R.K. Pur PS case No.2021/RKP/125 registered under sections 353, 333, 307, 384 read with section 34 IPC.

[2] Similar application was filed by the petitioner earlier which was rejected by this court by an order dated 15.09.2021.

[3] The facts of the case may be reproduced from the said order dated 15.09.2021 which is as under:

“[2] The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the FIR lodged by Litan Chakraborty, victim with the Officer in charge of R.K.Pur Police station on 12.08.2021. The informant alleged that on 12.08.2021 at about 03 O’clock in the afternoon he was going to his office for performing duty. Accused along with his associates stood on his way and attacked him with an iron rod. The accused gave several blows on his forehead with the said iron rod. Besides physically assaulting him, accused also destroyed his official papers and robbed him of a sum of Rs.7000/-. The informant at that time was a Supervisor(Assistant) in Udaipur Municipal Council. The informant also alleged that as a result of the assault, he received cut injury in his left hand and he also received bleeding injury in several parts of his body. His FIR was registered as R.K.Pur P.S. Case No.2021 RKP/125 under Sections 353 ,333,307 and 384 read with Section 34 IPC and the case was taken up for investigation.”

[4] Heard Mr. H. Debnath, learned senior advocate appearing along with Ms. U. Chanda, advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. representing the State respondent.

[5] It is submitted by Mr. Debnath, learned senior advocate that investigation is almost complete. Most of the witnesses of the case have been examined by the investigating agency and the purpose of arrest and custodial interrogation of the accused is over and therefore there is no reason to arrest and detain the accused. It is further contended by learned senior advocate that as per the medical report, alleged injuries were all simple and the allegation of the prosecution that the accused attacked and caused fatal injuries to the informant are all false and no non bailable offence is made out against the accused. Learned senior counsel further submits that mother of the accused has fallen seriously ill and thereafter his wife has also fallen ill who has been undergoing treatment in the isolation ward of a hospital at Agartala and there is none at home to look after these ailing members of the family. Mr. Debnath, learned senior advocate, therefore, urges the court to release the accused on bail on any condition whatsoever.

[6] Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the bail application. His contention is that apart from the injured informant there were many other eye witnesses whose police statements under section 161, Cr.P.C have been recorded and they have categorically asserted that the accused petitioner made a violent attack on the informant with deadly weapons when he was in the discharge of his official duty. Mr. Datta, learned P.P. contends that the eye witnesses have categorically stated that had the accused not been prevented by them, the informant would have been killed. Learned P.P. also refers to a petition dated 08.10.2021 of the investigating officer who has applied to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for issuing non bailable arrest warrant against the accused because even after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this court by an order dated 15.09.2021 despite several attempts the accused could not be apprehended. Learned P.P. submits that the allegation against the accused is