Justice Arindam Lodh of High Court of Tripura ruled that consideration for granting bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. was ‘different’ and pointed out accused Dilip Debbarma’s past records of threats to the complainant.
While pronouncing his verdict in the case- Dipak Debbarma vs The State of Tripura- the judge not only denied bail to the petitioner, who was accused under Sections 341/325/307/34 of IPC but also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the accused for his behaviour.
The accused initially filed an anticipatory bail application, which was granted subject to certain conditions. However, the accused violated these conditions and was subsequently denied bail.
Justice Lodh added, “As observed earlier that since the accused-applicant did not obey the conditions of bail in letter and spirit, rather he had threatened the complainant with dire consequences, I impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the accused-applicant.”
After multiple legal proceedings, including an order to surrender, the accused applicant surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), who also denied bail, citing misuse of previous bail. The wife of the accused then filed another bail application, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge due to concerns over the accused’s behavior and the severity of the victim’s injuries.
Advocate P. Roy Barman appeared for the Applicant and Advocate S. Debnath appeared for the Respondent.
The accused-applicant’s senior counsel argued that the accused has been in custody for over 51 days and that bail should be granted since the trial has not concluded.
The prosecution argued against bail, stating that the accused poses a threat to witnesses and the complainant’s life and that he has a history of violating bail conditions.
The Court emphasized that the consideration for bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. is distinct. The Court observed, “In the instant case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had released the accused on interim bail stipulating the condition that he would not threaten/intimidate the witnesses to the case. It is evident from the record itself that in spite of this condition, the accused had threatened the complainant with dire consequences.”
The accused’s threats to the complainant and misrepresentation of facts were considered, leading to the rejection of bail. Ultimately, the Court rejected the bail application.
(Support from Verdictum)
