Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 179
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Biswajit Palit, J
Anamika Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
B.A. No.7 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Subham Majumder
For the Respondents: Raju Datta, Rajib Saha, Subrata Sarkar, Kabrabam Dhirendra Singha
The granting of bail in heinous offenses requires a judicial officer to record cogent reasons. Orders failing to do so, or appearing mechanical by ignoring the gravity of the crime and submitted evidence, are perverse and subject to cancellation by superior courts to ensure the administration of justice.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 437 - Bail in non-bailable offenses - Requirement of recording reasons - Any court or officer releasing a person on bail must record in writing the reasons for granting such relief, particularly in cases of non-bailable offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment.
(B) Cancellation of bail - An unreasoned or perverse order granting bail is subject to interference by a superior court - Discretionary power to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, and the potential impact of liberty on the trial process.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging an interim bail order granted by a lower court in a matter involving a serious crime resulting in death. The lower court granted bail based primarily on the duration of custody while failing to note the filing of a charge-sheet or the gravity of the offense, leading the petitioner to seek the cancellation of said bail.
Findings of Court:
The order of the lower court was deemed mechanical and deficient in the application of judicial mind, as it failed to record specific or cogent reasons for the grant of relief while ignoring the evidentiary materials provided by the prosecution.
Issues: Whether the bail order granted by the lower court was legally sustainable and whether the absence of recorded reasons in a serious criminal matter warrants the intervention and cancellation by a superior court.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail orders in cases of severe criminal offenses must reflect an informed judicial decision that balances individual liberty against the gravity of the crime. An order that fails to disclose the factors considered or ignores pertinent records such as a filed charge-sheet is inherently perverse, thereby necessitating cancellation to ensure the ends of justice.
Result: Application for cancellation of bail allowed; bail order set aside and cancelled.
This bail application under Section 483 read with Section 528 of BNSS is filed for cancelling/quashing/setting aside the order of interim bail dated 09.01.2025 delivered by Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Amtali PS case No.126 of 2024 for the offence punishable under 103(1) of BNS, 2023. The respondent-principal accused has filed objection by filing counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit challenging the prayer of the victim-cum-applicant.
Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Subham Majumder appearing on behalf of the victim-applicant and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. Raju Datta representing the State of Tripura and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Subrata Sarkar assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Kabrabam Dhirendra Singha appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused namely Shri Samarjit Chowdhury.
In course of hearing of argument Learned Counsel for the victim-applicant first of all drawn the attention of the Court referring the order dated 09.01.2025 delivered by Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala and submitted that without considering the heinous nature of crime Learned CJM West Tripura Agartala by the said order granted interim bail to the respondent-accused whereas on the same day, charge-sheet was submitted by the IO on completion of investigation along with separate prayer for holding custody trial of the accused. However, from the order of Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala, it appears that nothing was mentioned in respect of filing of charge-sheet by the IO and the prayer of holding custody trial submitted by the IO was also not placed before Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala. Learned Counsel further submitted that although from the said order prima facie it appears that at the time of passing of order Learned CJM mentioned that the accused person was in JC for 89 days but factually on that day it was the 88th day, not 89th day and that order does not contain any ground as to why the bail was granted to the respondent-accused. Learned Counsel also referred the provision of Section 437(1) and its proviso and also Section 437(4) of Cr.P.C. and submitted that on bare perusal of the order, it appears that no reason was assigned by Learned CJM at the time of granting interim bail. Learned Counsel also drawn the attention of the Court referring the contents of the FIR and submitted that it is clear that the alleged respondent-accused on the alleged day of commission of offence committed murder of two innocent persons mercilessly. So, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he should be put behind the bars and the trial should be held keeping the accused in JC. Learned Counsel further drawn the attention of the Court referring Annexures-R/2 and R/3 and submitted that those papers were not placed before the Learned CJM at the time of passing of order. Learned Counsel also referred the statements of some of the witnesses of the prosecution recorded by the IO under 180 of BNSS in course of investigation of this case. Learned Counsel again drawn the attention of the Court referring Annexure-R/8 by which the informant of this case on 17.02.2025 submitted a prayer to SP, West Tripura District informing that the accused after release on bail from the Court was threatening the witnesses of the prosecution including the victim herself and further drawn the attention of the Court referring Annexure-R/9 and submitted that on 16.02.2025 the victim-applicant appeared before O/C, Amtali PS and narrated the fact of threatening the prosecution witnesses including the applicant herself by the respondent-accused and on the basis of that a P/R under Section 126 of BNSS is submitted by the IO and in support of his contention, he referred few citations before the Court.
Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that the IO on completion of investigation on the 88th day submitted charge-sheet against the accused before the Court but for some unknown reason, the said charge-sheet was not placed
