[1] Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State.

[2] This petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [for short, the BNSS], 2023 in connection with Champahour P.S. Case No.22 of 2025 registered under Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [for short, the BNS], 2023, has been filed praying for granting bail of the accused, Sri Rathindra Debbarma.

[3] The accused is facing trial under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. He was arrested on 09.08.2025 and since then he is in custody.

[4] The allegation as surfaced in the FIR lodged by the wife of the accused, Smt. Mitali Debbarma is that on 08.08.2025, she went to the house of her sister at Garmaibari from Khowai and from there, the present accused went to the market along with their daughter, namely Suhani Debbarma at around 5 pm for feeding her cold drinks. There the accused mixing some poison with said cold drinks, fed the same to their daughter, namely Suhani Debbarma, aged about one year and six months. After returning to the house, Suhani felt sick and the informant found smell of poison from her mouth. Immediately she was taken to Behalabari Hospital and then to Khowai Hospital and ultimately, to GBP Hospital on reference, where the Doctor declared her death.

[5] The police investigated the case and laid the charge-sheet under Section 103(1) of the BNS with a prayer for custody trial of the accused which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai.

[6] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the accused strenuously argues that this case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the present accused person that he had fed any poison to the deceased. Moreover, there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in between the statement of the informant, Mitali Debarma and another witness namely, Sri Aijak Debbarma. Learned counsel points out that according to Aijak Debbarma, he also went with the accused and the deceased to the market where the accused gave him Rs.100/- and sent him to a shop for purchasing ‘Nimbupani’. The accused meanwhile was walking slowly with the deceased towards the house. When he returned, he found that the deceased was vomiting and he also found smell of medicine from her mouth and meanwhile, the accused fed some of ‘Nimbupani’ to the deceased and also poured some of said ‘Nimbupani’ on her person. Thereafter, his parents arrived there and he informed the matter to his parents, whereas in the FIR, informant, Mitali Debbarma stated that by mixing poison with ‘Nimbupani’, the same was administered to the deceased by the accused. According to learned counsel, Mr. Datta, in the FIR, nowhere it was stated that first of all poison was administered and then ‘Nimbupani’ was fed to the deceased rather it was the allegation that such poison was administered by mixing the same with said ‘Nimbupani’ and therefore, there are inconsistencies between the version of Mitali Debbarma and said Aijak Debbarma rendering statements of both the witnesses dis-believable. Learned counsel also submits that the accused is a Nayib-Subedar in TSR and there is no chance of his abscondance and for more than 9 [nine] months he is in custody. He also submits that on two occasions, the calendar for examining the prosecution witnesses is frustrated for non-appearance of the witnesses and therefore, unnecessarily the accused is languishing behind the bar. Thus, on the above grounds, learned counsel prays for granting bail.

[7] Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP seriously opposes the prayer and submits that Aijak Debbarma had categorically stated that when he arrived after purchasing ‘Nimbupani’, he found that the deceased was vomiting when she was in the lap of the accused and he also found smell of poison emitting from the mouth of the deceased. Learned P.P refers to the final opinion of the autopsy surgeon and report of the SFSL and submits that Chloropyrifos type of pesticides which is a poison was detected in the viscera content of the deceased and autopsy surgeon also opined that the cause of death was due to poisoning by administering Chloropyrifos type of pesticides. According to learned P.P., a one year and six months old daughter was killed by her father in a pre-planned manner and all the prosecution witnesses are his closed relatives. Therefore, if he released on bail, the prosecution’s case will be frustrated as there will be ample scope for him to influence the witnesses. Learned P.P also submits that the police has examined one Biswajit Rudra Paul and another Kush Debbarma from whose shops, said poison and ‘Nimbupani’ were purchased. Therefore, it is not a case of circumstantial evidence rather direct evidence is there against the accused.

[8] This Court has considered the submissions of both sides.

[9] It appears that there are prima-facie materials against the accused that just before the deceased was found vomiting and emitting smell of certain poison from her mouth, she was in the custody of the accused. Doctor has also found poisonous substance in her viscera, which according them, was the cause of the death of the deceased. As it appears that the learned Sessions Judge, after framing of charge, initially fixed the calendar of examination of witnesses from 12.01.2026 to 26.02.2026 but the accused meanwhile fell sick and was sent to GBP Hospital, Agartala for which the calendar was frustrated. Then learned Sessions Judge again fixed another calendar, commencing from 06.03.2026 to 18.03.2026 but during that period, no witness turned up. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge also fixed another calendar from 01.05.2026 to 07.05.2026 but as the bail application was filed before this Court, the records were called for by this court and the said calendar was also frustrated. Therefore, it appears that only one calendar was utilized for examination of witnesses but none of the witnesses appeared.

[10] The allegations and the materials as placed in the charge-sheet are suggestive of a very heinous nature of crime allegedly committed by the accused. Punishment thereof is also very severe. It is a case of killing of one year and six months old daughter allegedly by her father. It is also a fact that prime witnesses are the closed relatives of the accused person. Though there are materials that there were some strained relationship between the accused and his wife during that period of alleged incident, but for that reason, the possibility of influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out at this stage.

[11] Considering the heinousness of the crime as well as severity of the punishment, the prima-facie incriminating materials as placed by the prosecution and also considering the fact of relationship between the witnesses and the accused, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. Bail prayer is accordingly rejected.

[12] However, the accused is in custody for a considerable period. Order of the learned trial Court does not clearly specify whether summon was properly served upon the witnesses or not and whether despite receipt of summons, any witness fail to appear before the Court or not. As it is a case where the accused is detained in the jail, learned Sessions Judge will take all endeavors to dispose of the matter expeditiously and if it is found that despite receipt of summons, the witnesses are not appearing without justifiable cause, the trial Court will be at liberty to take coercive action against those witnesses. The investigating officer is also instructed to ensure the presence of the witnesses on the dates fixed.

[13] With such observation and directions, this bail application is disposed of.

Communicate the copy of this order to the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura.

Reconsign the records of the learned trial Court.

Return the CD to learned P.P with a copy of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.