Dulal Miah and others vs The State of Tripura

TRHC010015412026 2026:THC:1274

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA


BA No. 152 OF 2026

1. Dulal Miah,
Son of Late Chand Miah, resident of Kathaliamura, Ward No.5,
P.O. & P.S. Sonamura, District Sepahijala, Tripura, Pin 799115.
2. Sarif Hossain,
Son of Sri Khurshed Alam, resident of Kathaliamura, Ward No.5,
P.O. & P.S. Sonamura, District Sepahijala, Tripura, Pin 799115.
3. Rubel Miah,
Son of Sri Malu Miah, resident of Kathaliamura, Ward No.5, P.O. &
P.S. Sonamura, District Sepahijala, Tripura, Pin 799115.

…. Applicants/Petitioners
Versus


The State of Tripura
--- Respondent

For the Applicants/
Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Senior Advocate.
Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate.
Mr. S. Dhanuk, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
th
Date of hearing : 28 August, 2026
Date of delivery of
th
Judgment & Order : 15 September, 2026

Whether fit for reporting :
YES NO

√
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER






Bail for accused persons (Applicants/Petitioners), namely, Dulal
Miah, Sarif Hossain and Rubel Miah are sought for in connection with
Sonamura P.S. Case No.67 of 2025 [ST(Type-1) 09 of 2026] for commission
of offences, under Sections 329(4)/118(2)/109/310(3)/61(2)/3(5) of BNS
2023.
[2] Accused Dulal Miah was arrested on 07.08.2025. Accused Sarif
Hossain was arrested on 11.08.2025 and accused Rubel Miah was arrested

2

on 09.10.2025. All are therefore, in custody for more than 340 days, even
accused Dulal Miah and Sarif Hossain are in custody for more than one year.
[3] Charges against them were framed for illegal trespass in the
house of Rabindra Das, for causing grievous hurt to his parents, for causing
death of Santi Ranjan Das (his father) and for committing dacoity in their
house. No evidence yet been recorded though one date was fixed for
recording of evidence of informant and R.O.
[4] Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submits that one of the petitioners namely, Dulal Miah is in custody for more
than 380 days and charge-sheet in this case was submitted on 02.11.2025.
Referring to the FIR, learned senior counsel submits that there has been
unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the same.
[5] It is also submitted by Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel that
the present accused-petitioners are not FIR named except Dulal Miah,
though one Rubel Miah is named as accused in the FIR, but his father’s
name is different. Referring to GD Entry No.5 of 06.08.2025, learned senior
counsel argues that it was the first information which was given to the police
over phone by one Sanjoy Das of that locality that some unknown miscreants
illegally entered into the dwelling house of deceased Santi Ranjan Das and
killed him by sharp cutting weapon and those unknown miscreants also tried
to kill his wife and he requested police intervention. According to learned
senior counsel, the information entered in the said GD itself disclosed
commission of cognizable offence and therefore, same ought to have been
treated as FIR, but illegally police waited for submission of FIR by the present
informant with a delay of more than 24 hours giving the informant scope of
embellishment. It is also pointed out that when the information of incident
was given first at dawn at about 6:00 am on that date (incident occurred on
the previous night), it was categorically stated that some unknown miscreants
had entered illegally into the dwelling house of the deceased but in the FIR
several names were thereafter included in concoction. In this regard, learned
senior counsel also refers to a statement of the injured wife of the deceased
recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the hospital after taking certificate of
medical officer about her mental fitness to give dying declaration and in that
statement, the wife of the deceased categorically stated that on the previous

3

night at around 9:30/10:00 pm, suddenly 10 to 12 young boys came to their
house with sharp cutting weapons and attacked her husband and herself,
injured them and thereafter they took away the gold chain, ear rings and she
could identify only 2/3 persons out of them who were the son of Dulal Miah,
son of Makbul Miah and son of Manu Miah and thus, names of none of the
present petitioners were disclosed by her, but later on, when her statement
was recorded by the investigating officer on 26.09.2025 i.e. with a substantial
period of delay of more than one month, she disclosed that amongst the
miscreants, Dulu and his son, two sons of Khurshed Miah, two sons of Manu

Miah and others were also there.
[6] Learned senior counsel also refers to the statement of one
witness namely, Partha Das who stated in his statement recorded under
Section 180 of BNSS that the wife of the deceased had disclosed names of
total 5 (five) persons to him when he was taking her to the hospital but
surprisingly, in the statement of said wife of the deceased recorded by the
Executive Magistrate those names did not appear there. Therefore, it creates
serious doubt about the veracity of the statements of said witness recorded
by the investigating officer under Section 180 of BNSS.
[7] It is also submitted by him that the statements of neighbouring
people namely Pranab Das Roy, Rupajit Das, Nikunja Das, Sabita Das,
Sujan Das and Sanjit Das who disclosed the names of accused persons
were also recorded with unexplained delay which casts a serious doubt on
the correctness of their statements. If they at all would know the names of the
miscreants, certainly they would disclose these names at the earliest
opportunity to the police.
[8] Referring to the inquest report, learned senior counsel also
submits that in the inquest report it is categorically mentioned that incident
was caused by some unknown persons and in the said report, the son of the
deceased namely, Rabindra Das (informant) himself signed as a witness but
in the FIR, surprisingly he mentioned specific names of some miscreants.
[9] Finally, learned senior counsel submits that there is no criminal
antecedent of the present accused persons and they have their permanent
home and hearth in the given addresses and therefore, if they are granted

4

bail, they will fully cooperate in the trial and will not try to influence any
witness of the case.
[10] Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel also relies on a decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mr.
Brahmananda Nanda; AIR 1976 SC 2488 . In the said case while
appreciating the evidences of witnesses, it is observed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that though according to the witness (PW-6), she saw the
murderous assault on Hrudananda by the respondent and she also saw the
respondent coming out of an adjoining house where the rest of the murders
were committed, but she did not mention the name of the respondent as the
assailant for a day and a half. Therefore, it was not possible to accept the
explanation sought to be given on behalf of the prosecution that she did not
disclose the name of the respondent as assailant earlier on account of fear.
This case was an appeal against acquittal of the accused given by the High
Court.
[11] Learned senior counsel further relies on another decision in the
case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR
1979 SC 135, wherein it is observed that considering the light of the
surrounding circumstances, inordinate delay in registration of the FIR in that
case and further delay in recording statements of material witnesses, cast a
cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the
prosecution story. It was also a case of appeal against conviction where
appreciation of evidence was made after full trial.
[12] Learned P.P. refers to the statements of witness namely Pranab
Das Roy, Rupajit Das, Nikunja Das, Ayesha Khatun and some other
witnesses and submits that according to their statements it is satisfactorily
established during investigation regarding the culpability of the present
petitioners in such a case of gruesome murder and decoity. When an old lady
had herself suffered severe injuries and had somehow survived in the
incident and was in a serious traumatic condition, it was very usual that she
would miss the names of all the culprits to the Executive Magistrate when
she was under treatment just after the incident.

5

[13] Learned P.P. also submits that in case the accused petitioners
are released on bail, trial would seriously be hampered as they will try to
influence the witnesses who are of the same locality. He also submits that
the judgment relied upon by Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel is the
decision of after full trial of the case.
[14] Learned P.P. also relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others; (2003) 2
SCC 518, wherein it is observed that there is no hard and fast rule that any
delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case
doubtful. He further relies on another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Harivadan Babubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat; (2013) 7 SCC
45, wherein it is observed that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as
a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the
same solely on the ground of delay. If the explanation offered is satisfactory
and there is no possibility of embellishment, the delay should not be treated
as fatal to the prosecution case.
[15] The Court has considered the statements of witnesses recorded
by the investigating officer during investigation including the statements of
the witnesses namely, Partha Das, Suman Bhowmik, Bimal Bhowmik and
Rabindra Das whose statements were recorded just after the incident on
06.08.2025 and also the statements of the witnesses namely, Pranab Das
Roy, Rupajit Das, Nikunja Das, Sabita Das, Sujan Das and Sanjit Das whose
statements were recorded on 10.08.2025 and also the statement of witness
namely, Biswajit Das whose statement was recorded on 12.08.2025. Any
comment on the credibility of their statements vis-à-vis the time of their
examination by the investigating officer will have bearing in the trial and
therefore, the matter is kept open for decision by the learned Trial Court after
the evidences of the witnesses are recorded. There are sufficient prima facie
materials in the record involving the present petitioners in the alleged
offences. While taking note of personal liberty of the accused persons,
interest of the prosecution and the fair trial are also required to be kept in
mind and a due balance is required to be maintained.
[16] Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of
U.P.; (2022) 8 SCC 559 , held as under:

6

"Analysis
A. Principles governing grant of bail
20. Section 439CrPC is the guiding principle for adjudicating a
regular bail application wherein court takes into consideration
several aspects. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised
cautiously on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to
the facts and circumstances of each case.
21. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri)
674], a two-Judge Bench of this Court stated the principles which
are to be considered while granting bail which are as follows:
(SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on
the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary
manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence
in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means
and standing of the accused, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State
and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept
in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the
legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for
believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the
court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it
(sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt."
22. As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
765], it is well-settled that the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail."
[17] While granting bail to the accused, the impact of the same in the
society is also required to be looked into. In case of Neeru Yadav vs. State
of U.P.; (2016) 15 SCC 422 , the followings were further observed by the
Apex Court:

7

"13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the
concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established
fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all
cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions
and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the
society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate
eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is
understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a
civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the
peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty
which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law
unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a
nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the society;
and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost
two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to
their disposition to put moral chains upon their own
appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above
their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and
sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed
to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in
preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist
unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the
more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal
constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds
cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
[Alfred Howard, The Beauties of Burke (T. Davison,
London) 109.]"
[18] There are total 36 Nos. of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet by
the investigating officer and many of them are official witnesses. Therefore,
examination of all the witnesses is likely to take a longer time. However,
beside the same, the apprehension of learned P.P. that if released on bail,
the accused petitioners will try to influence the independent witnesses of the
occurrence who are of the same locality, cannot also be ruled out at this
stage.
[19] Considering all these aspects, the bail prayer of all the present
petitioners is rejected. As already indicated above, learned Sessions Judge
only fixed a single date for examination of two witnesses i.e. the informant
and the R.O. and on that day he himself was also not present. Recording
Officer is an official witness who can be examined at a later stage. Keeping in
view of the considerable incarceration of the accused persons, it is directed
that learned Sessions Judge will first fix a calendar for examination of victim,
informant and all the independent witnesses within one month of receipt of
copy of this judgment. The investigating officer will ensure presence of the
above said witnesses before the Court according to the calendar itself so that
they are examined on the dates fixed. Learned Sessions Judge will also take
all endeavor to complete the recording of evidence of above said witnesses

8

including the victim within three months and thereafter, may consider the bail
prayer of the present accused petitioners favourably in accordance with law
with suitable restrictions, if any. The accused petitioners are expected to
cooperate with the Trial Court without seeking any undue adjournment on the
dates so fixed for that purpose.
With such observations and direction, bail application is
disposed of.
Re-consign the Trial Court record with a copy of this judgment.
Also return the case diary to learned P.P. with a copy of this
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
JUDGE







Rudradeep RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Date: 2026.09.15 15:13:32 +05'30'