SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 264

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S. Datta Purkayastha, J
Haripada Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tripura – Respondent
B.A. No.51 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghunath Mukharjee, Pratik Bhowmik
For the Respondents: Raju Datta

Bail is the general rule and jail the exception. For abetment to suicide, the prosecution must establish a positive act of direct or indirect instigation or aid by the accused; mere incidents of workplace harassment or snap anger are insufficient to sustain a charge without evidence of clear intent.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 3(5), 103(1), 108 - Bail application for alleged abetment to suicide - Principles governing grant of bail - Pre-trial detention as an exception - Proved necessity of positive act of instigation or aiding for charge of abetment. (Paras 1, 7-9, 13, 18-24)

(B) Bail is a cardinal rule and incarceration is an exception. Pre-trial detention imposes restrictions on fundamental personal liberty and should be curtailed only when imperative. (Paras 18, 24)

(C) Abetment requires a mental process of instigation or intentional aiding. A single act of harassment or a snap display of anger short of direct incitement or a continuous course of conduct leading the victim to perceive no other option, fails to meet the threshold for abetment to suicide. (Paras 12, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought bail in a case involving the death of a person found hanging after a verbal and physical altercation at a workplace. Allegations included harassment and the recording of a contentious incident. The prosecution sought a custodial trial, citing the potential for the accused to abscond and the risk of tampering with evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide substantial grounds or elaborated facts to justify continuous custodial detention. It was noted that there is no prima facie material regarding direct inducement or constant harassment, and the basic requirements for the offense of abetment were not adequately established at the investigative stage. The court determined that the accused did not pose a significant flight risk and that the protective role of the state does not automatically necessitate custodial detention. (Paras 15-17, 25)

Issues: The primary questions were whether the ingredients for the offence of abetment to suicide were prima facie satisfied and whether the criteria for continued pre-trial detention, such as abscondence or influence over witnesses, were justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Abetment necessitates proof of an active role by the accused in instigation or intentional aiding, which must go beyond momentary workplace harassment. Without evidence of a clear intention to provoke the act of suicide, and in the absence of specific evidence suggesting the accused would subvert justice or tamper with remaining evidences, continued detention constitutes an unjustified restriction on personal liberty.

Result: Bail application allowed subject to specific terms and conditions concerning bonds, sureties, and non-interference with the judicial process.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to fir and police investigation status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties' contentions regarding abetment and flight risk. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court’s assessment of evidence and individual circumstances for bail. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. bail is the general rule; incarceration is an exception. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. granting of bail with specific conditions for the accused. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

JUDGMENT & ORDER

This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, BNSS), 2023 praying for the grant of bail to the above noted accused persons in connection with Dharmanagar PS case No. 2025 DMN 0122 [renumbered as ST (Type-1) 07 of 2026] under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar who has allowed the prayer for custodial trial of the accused persons vide order dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure-1).

[2] One Sri Nepal Sarkar (Respondent no.2), father of the deceased Prasenjit Sarkar lodged the FIR on 14.12.2025 against said accused Miss Susmita Bhattacharjee, Miss Sangita Bhattacharjee and three others (not named in the FIR) regarding the death of his son whose dead body was found hanging in a jungle nearby his house on that day, with the allegations that on the previous day at around 06:00 pm, at the Blue Dart Courier Service office, Rajbari, the accused persons had some acrimony with his son and recorded the incident on their mobile phones, and thereafter, made it viral. Then, at some point of time in the night, they killed him and get the body hanged.

[3] Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 but later on, as per prayer of the Investigating Officer, Section 108 of BNS, 2023 was added. The police, upon completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against all the said accused persons under Sections 126(2), 329(4), 115(2), 108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The Investigating Officer also prayed for custody trial of the accused persons on the ground that they may flee away, if released on bail to avoid the trial, and they may influence witnesses as well as temper the evidences and their lives may also be jeopardised.

[4] The materials against the accused persons as surfaced in the charge sheet after completion of investigation are that said Prasenjit Sarkar was a delivery boy at Blue Dart Courier Service, Dharmanagar and on 13.12.2025, he allegedly abused accused Susmita Bhattacharjee with slang languages and cancelled her online order. Thereafter, all the accused persons came to the Blue Dart Courier Service office at Rajbari where they abused Prasenjit Sarkar with rough language. Accused Sourab Bhattacharjee held the collar of the jacket of Prasenjit and tore it. Thereafter, deceased Prasenjit Sarkar accepted his fault and begged pardon by touching his ears. Then the accused persons recorded the said incident on a mobile phone. After that, accused Sangita Bhattacharjee gave three slaps on his cheek in front of others and while departing from that place, they also threatened that if the said video of the said incident was uploaded in the facebook, he would not be able to show his face anywhere. Thereafter, the franchise owner Nutan Dhar requested accused Meghadeep Bhattacharjee not to upload the said video on facebook. At around 07:00 pm, the deceased left the Blue Dart Courier Service office for his house. In the house, he was found very depressed by his family members. He was crying, but on query, did not disclose anything to his family members, rather, he expressed that he did not want to live anymore. After some time, he went out of his house again to bring his jacket from the said office of Blue Dart, but ultimately he did not return on that night. On the following morning, his body was found hanging in the jungle on a tr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top