Pre-arrest bail may be denied to ensure effective investigation and interrogation where a prima facie case exists against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. S. Rahaman, learned advocate. Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for his release on pre-arrest bail in East Agartala P. S. Case No. 2021 EAG 179 under Sections 325 , 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Factual context of the case is as under:

Sri Rahul Roy, son of late Bishu Roy of Math Chowmuhani in his FIR dated 29.12.2021 has alleged that at about 1.10 'O' clock in the intervening night between 25.12.2021 and 26.12.2021 petitioner Dipta Nath along with his associates came in a white coloured Verna car followed by a scooty and attacked him at Math Chowmuhani. The accused petitioner and his associates were armed with lathi and other deadly weapons who intended to kill the informant. They brutally assaulted him at Math Chowmuhani and left him near the Iskcon Mandir at Math Cohowmuhani. As a result of such assault, the informant sustained grievous hurt in his head and other parts of his body. He explained the delay in lodging the FIR by saying that due to the injury suffered by him and time taken for treatment, he could not lodge the FIR in time.

4. Based on such FIR, East Agartala P.S Case No.2021 EAG 179 under Sections 325 ,307,506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was taken up by police.

5. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel contends that the allegations brought by the first informant against the petitioner is entirely false and therefore, there is no reason to arrest and detain the petitioner in custody during the investigation of the case. Counsel submits that the informant is a highly influential person who is trying to get the petitioner arrested and detained in custody. It is also contended by Mr. Deb, learned counsel that since the petitioner belongs to a different political party, an FIR based on false allegations has been registered against him and he is likely to be arrested unless protected by the Court by an order of pre-arrest bail. Further contention of learned counsel of the petitioner is that there is no ingredient of Section 307 IPC in the case and the other charges brought against him are all bailable. Counsel also submits that petitioner is a patient of high blood sugar and other related ailments and moreover his parents are ailing and bed ridden. According to learned counsel, other than the petitioner there is no other person in his house to take care of his parents and family members including his wife and daughter. Counsel urges the court to take into consideration all these grounds and allow the petitioner pre-arrest bail in this case.

6. Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that during investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of eye witnesses who have given a vivid description of the occurrence. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that as per the eye witness version, the petitioner and his associates initially started beating the driver of a truck after their vehicle collided with that truck at Math Chowmuhani. When they were assaulting the driver of the truck, the first informant appeared there as a good Samaritan to save the innocent truck driver from their attack. The petitioner and his associates then hounded the informant and assaulted him mercilessly. As a result of which he suffered serious damage in one of his eyes. It is also submitted by learned P.P that probably he has been taken for tr