[1] Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.

[2] The application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short-BNSS) seeking bail of accused Mihir Kanti Nath in connection with Dahrmanagar Women P.S case No.2 of 2026 registered under Section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short- BNS),2023.

[3] The prosecutrix, a widow lady in this case submitted the FIR at Dharmanagar Police station on 19.01.2026 alleging, inter alia, that she was working in the farm-house of the accused and during her such employment, the accused forcefully committed rape upon her on some occasions and she became pregnant. The accused also asked her to abort the pregnancy which she did not agree and therefore, the FIR was lodged. Police registered the case as Dharmanagar Women P.S. Case No.2 of 2026 under Section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short- BNS),2023. The accused was arrested on 20.01.2026 and the Police, after completion of investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the accused under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS on 28.02.2026, and thereafter, the prayer for custody trial was allowed.

[4] Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Subrata Sarkar assisted by Mr. K.D.Singha for the applicant submits that both the accused and the Prosecutrix were adult and she was the widow lady having 02(two) children and it is a clear case of consensual sex between the parties, and only when she was ousted from her matrimonial home after they got the information that she was carrying pregnancy, she has lodged the case and prior to that, she was all along silent. Therefore, according to Ld. Sr. Counsel, the application of Section 64(2)(m) is seriously doubtful in this case. Ld. Counsel also submits that for 120 days the present accused person is in custody and if released on bail, he will not in any way try to terrorize or influence any witness of the case and will regularly attend the Court. Ld. Sr. Counsel also submits that the said farm-house is not owned by the accused, rather, it is the farm-house of his elder brother.

[5] Ld. PP, however, opposes the prayer referring to the statements of the two workers of the said farm-house of the accused, namely, one Shri Sripad Nath and Shri Gopal Das and also referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and submits that due to poverty, the victim was dependent on the accused as his employee and she was under constant pressure that if she was driven out from that job, she would not be able to maintain herself and her children. In such a situation, it was not possible for her to resist the accused, though she never consented for any such sexual relationship. Due to such helpless condition, she could not file the FIR after the first incident of alleged rape, too.

[6] Ld. PP also submits that if the accused is released on bail, he will certainly get a scope to influence his workers.

[7] The Court has considered the submissions of both sides and has also gone through the record.

[8] Both the said workers have stated that they had noticed that in the said farm house both the prosecutrix and the accused would stay in the room of the accused after closing the door. But they did not know what they(Prosecutrix and accused) would do there and only few days ago they came to know that she was forcefully raped by the accused and she became pregnant.

[9] From the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, it appears that the physical relationship or the rape, as the case may be, occurred on many occasions during the period of 7/8 months, prior to the filing of the FIR.

[10] From the statement of the two witnesses of ‘One Stop Centre’, it appears that after she was ousted from her matrimonial home, she took shelter at said ‘One Stop Centre’ and thereafter, the FIR was lodged by her.

[11] Whether it is a case of rape or a case of simple consensual sex, will be determined during trial. However, it is the fact that for about 4 months the accused is in custody and the investigation is also meanwhile complete. Since long, the law has been settled that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception as pretrial detention has its own punitive content.

[12] Considering all these aspects and the discussions made hereinabove, the bail prayer is allowed.

[13] Accused person, namely, Mihir Kanti Nath may go on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand)only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar on condition that:

               i) Surety must be a permanent resident of State of Tripura;

               ii) The accused will not leave the State of Tripura without prior permission of the Ld. Sessions Judge;

               iii) The accused will not, any way, try to make any contact with any of the witnesses of the case either directly or indirectly, so as to influence or terrorize them to obstruct them from divulging truth before the Court;

               iv) He will not enter the said farm-house till examination of material witnesses are complete including said two workers of the said farm-house;

               v) He will regularly attend the Court to face trial;

               vi) He will give his attendance once in a fortnight in the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura till the conclusion of the trial or till the said condition is relaxed by the Ld. Sessions Judge.

[14] Send a copy of this order immediately to Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar forthwith.

Impugned order of custody trial of the accused as passed by Ld. Sessions Judge is set aside.

Return the CD to Ld. PP with copy of this order.

Also return the LC record.

The Bail Application is disposed of.