Pre-arrest bail was denied due to serious charges against the petitioners and sufficient prima facie evidence necessitating their arrest to ensure a fair investigation.

JUDGMENT

1. Since these applications arise out of the same occurrence, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal by a common order.

2. Petitioners are accused in East Agartala PS case No.2021EAG160 registered under sections 341,325,384,307 read with section 34 IPC and section 25(1)(d) of the ARMS ACT , 1959.

3. Apprehending arrest in the case, they have filed these applications seeking pre arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate General as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P representing the State.

5. The Factual context of the case is as under:

One Subrata Kar, son of Late Swapan Kumar Kar of Dhaleswar, Agartala lodged a written FIR with the officer in charge of East Agartala police station alleging, inter alia, that on 21.11.2021 at about 8 O' clock in the night when he was crossing the road adjacent to Gedu Miah Masjid at Shibnagar on his motor bike, accused petitioner Nipu Ghosh detained him at the point of his pistol and snatched away a gold chain weighing about 15gm from his neck. The other three petitioners namely Debu Ghosh, Ramu Saha and Sajal Bardhan who were then accompanying accused Nipu Ghosh started assaulting the informant. Having received injuries from such assault, the informant collapsed on the ground. The accused petitioners then robbed him of a sum of Rs.10,000/- in cash. Following his cry, the neighbouring people rescued him and brought him to AGMC and GBP hospital for treatment. He was then having bleeding injuries in his skull and other parts of his face. He was also having severe pain across his body. The informant alleged that the accused petitioners intended to kill him.

6. Based on such FIR, East Agartala PS case No.2021EAG160 under sections 341,325,384,307 read with section 34 IPC and section 25(1)(d) of the ARMS ACT , 1959 was registered by police and investigation of the case was taken up.

7. Apprehending arrest, the accused petitioners have approached this court for pre arrest bail by means of filing these applications under section 438 Cr.P.C.

8. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Lodh, learned advocate contends that petitioners are innocent who have been implicated in a false case for detention and harassment. Counsel submits that on the same day the Secretary of Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Club lodged a complaint with the officer in charge of East Agartala police station alleging that a huge number of people in mask and helmet came in a procession to the Masjid road near Chittaranjan Club on their motor bikes and assaulted 4/5 persons of the locality. They terrorized the people of the entire area particularly the women who fled in fear. Counsel submits that the first informant was one of the members of the group of bikers who subsequently lodged a false FIR against the accused petitioners, all of whom are members of Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Club. Counsel contends that no action has been taken by the investigating agency on the said complaint lodged by the Secretary, Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Club, even though the complaint was received at the police station on the same day. It is also contended by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that the investigating agency who should have acted impartially without any malice towards the accused petitioners, promptly registered a case on the FIR lodged by Subrata Kar who actually created terror at the place of occurrence whereas no action has yet been taken on the complaint lodged by the Secretary of Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Club. It is also contended by Mr. Lodh, learned co