[1] Heard learned counsel of both sides.

[2] The application of bail has been filed on behalf of the accused, Shankar Das, in connection with West Agartala Women P.S. Case No.53 of 2025, now registered as Special (POCSO) 67 of 2025 in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala.

[3] The FIR was lodged on 03.10.2025 by the father of the victim, alleging, inter alia, that on the said date at around 10.30 am, his neighbours found his 15 years old daughter (the victim) lying in a senseless condition in an abandoned house at West Joynagar. He accordingly went there and on her regaining sense, the victim informed him that the present accused forcefully committed rape on her and also attempted to kill her. She was thereafter taken to GBP Hospital and was getting treatment there. The police authority registered the case under Sections 65(1)/109(1) of BNS, 2023, and under Section 4 of POCSO Act.

[4] During the investigation, the police visited the crime scene, recovered and seized one pair of slippers, one bottle of Castle Pride Whisky, another bottle of Royal Stag Deluxe Whisky and 4 nos. of empty small plastic vials. The IO also collected and seized stomach wash materials of the victim in liquid form, along with her blood sample, which were sent to the Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory (TSFSL) for investigation. The IO got the medical examination report of both the victim and the accused and as per the medical report; the accused was having the capability of performing sexual intercourse.

[5] The statement of the victim was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, wherein she stated that she the accused since long and would address him as „Dadu (grandfather)‟. On the alleged date of the incident, the accused took her to an abandoned house on the pretext of showing her a mobile phone, then pressed her mouth and breast, throttled her neck and also gave a hit on her head with a brick for which she lost her sense. When she regained her sense, she felt a burning sensation throughout her person and was not in a position to stand on her own feet. Meanwhile, another person came there and asked her name and address, thereafter, her father came and rescued her and took her to the hospital. In the statement recorded by the police, she stated that after taking her in the said abandoned house, the accused gave her ill proposal, and when she did not agree, the accused hit on her head with a brick, throttled her, and then she fell down on the ground. Thereafter, he put some poison in her mouth and she became senseless. He also committed an illicit act with her. Thereafter, her father came and took her to the hospital.

[6] The Medical Officer, while examining the victim, found one abrasion over the back of the right elbow joint, ligature mark in the upper part of neck, over the vertex region and another abrasion over the left side of the lower part of her face. According to the Medical Officer, she did not find any evidence of sexual penetration by vagina of the victim by an adult-size erected penis or penis-like object. The IO also collected fingerprints of the accused through the court and has sent them to the fingerprint expert. The IO thereafter submitted the chargesheet against the accused under Sections 118(1)/75(2)/76/61(2)(a)/65(1)/109(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 & 12of the POCSO Act, 2012 seeking custody trial of the accused the accused- petitioner was arrested on 04.10.2025.

[7] Thereafter, the learned Trial Court allowed the said custody trial of the accused vide an order dated 09.01.2026, with the observations that the offence was heinous in nature and as per prosecution‟s story; the accused was an influential person who might hamper the ongoing trial. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court.

[8] Mr. Hare Krishna Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, referring to the statement of the victim recorded by one Executing Magistrate, and also the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183(5) of BNSS, submits that there is no ingredient to attract Section 4 of the POCSO Act in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the accused is a poor fish seller and is not an influential person so as to influence any witness of the case if released on bail. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel further submits that the accused has been in custody for about 145 days, so bail may be granted to him with appropriate conditions.

[9] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel also submits that the order passed by the learned Special Judge regarding the custody trial was devoid of any reasoning. Since the accused being an ordinary fish-seller, the findings of the learned Trial Court that he was an influential person was totally erroneous. Learned counsel also relies on a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deshraj @Musa vs. State of Rajasthan, in Criminal Appeal No. /2024 (@SLP (CRL) No. 11020/2024), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2709, decided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 04.10.2024, wherein the case of the accused was that he was only eighteen and a half years of age and the victim was about sixteen years and there was a consensual relationship between the parties and as many as twelve witnesses were there to be examined, therefore, the trial was likely to be prolonged. The chargesheet in this case was submitted under Sections 354(D), 506, 363, 366, 376, 511and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act. The State opposed the prayer, disputing it to be a case of consensual relationship and so long as the material witnesses were not examined, the appellant might not be released on bail. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court thereafter granted bail to the accused with certain conditions.

[10] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel, also relies on another decision of this Court in case of Sri Priya lal Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura, in BA No.13 of 2026, dated 28.01.2026, wherein this Court observed that the said case was under Sections 126(2)/76 of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. As the prescribed punishments for all these offences were less than 7 years, the Court ultimately granted bail to the accused person, imposing certain conditions.

[11] Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP has placed before the Court the SFSL report regarding the examination results of the stomach wash materials of the victim which was sent to the State Forensic Laboratory, Narsingarh, by the IO mentioning in the chargesheet that the said report was still awaited. According to the report, Chlorpyrifos and Organophosphorus group of pesticide were detected in the stomach wash of the victim. According to the learned PP, it was a poison of serious nature sufficient enough to cause death of any person. Learned PP also submits that the said report will be submitted to the learned Trial Court in due course. Learned PP, therefore, opposes the bail prayer, submitting that there are sufficient materials against the accused under Section 109(1) of the BNSS and 118(2), and moreover, the victim has still not recovered, therefore, the bail prayer may be rejected. According to learned PP, if released on bail, the accused person will try to influence the witnesses.

[12] Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel representing the informant of the case, seriously opposes the bail prayer on the ground that due to poisoning at the instance of the accused, the victim‟s life has been put at risk and now she is receiving treatment at AIIMS, Delhi. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel has also placed several medical reports with prescriptions and one referral certificate issued by the State Medical Board, Agartala, referring the victim to AIIMS, Delhi, mentioning that it is a case of rodenticide poisoning with acute liver failure. Learned senior counsel submits that, considering the serious health condition of the victim, the State Government has been gracious enough to take responsibility for her treatment at the State‟s exchequer and if at this stage the accused is released on bail, a wrong message will go to the society and, moreover, she will also suffer further psychological trauma.

[13] Learned senior counsel also relies on a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh vs. Deepak and Ors., in Criminal Appeal No.1179 of 2022, decided on 05.08.2022. The relevant paragraphs Nos.12 and 13 of said judgment as relied on, are extracted hereunder:

               “12. It is well settled that though the power to grant bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, as held by this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh MANU/SC/0203/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 598. Speaking for the Court, Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. said:

               3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order -- but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the Accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

               4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

               (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

               (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

               (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

               (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the Accused is entitled to an order of bail.

               13. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee MANU/SC/0916/2010 : (2010) 14 SCC 496, D.K. Jain, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court laid down the principles for examining the correctness of orders granting bail to an Accused. This Court held:

               9….It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the Accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, 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 feeing, 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 influence; and

               (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

               10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.”

[14] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, further relies on another decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 1 SCC 529, wherein basically discussion was made regarding witness protection in criminal cases. It was also observed therein that many times, when hardened criminals escape the conviction, it shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system. Reference was also made to the 198th Law Commission Report at paragraph No.47, which is also extracted hereunder:

               “47. Almost to similar effect are the observations of the Law Commission of India in its 198th Report [Report on “witness identity protection and witness protection programmes”], as can be seen from the following discussion therein:

               “The reason is not far to seek. In the case of victims of terrorism and sexual offences against women and juveniles, we are dealing with a section of society consisting of very vulnerable people, be they victims or witnesses. The victims and witnesses are under fear of or danger to their lives or lives of their relations or to their property. It is obvious that in the case of serious offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other special enactments, some of which we have referred to above, there are bound to be absolutely similar situations for victims and witnesses. While in the case of certain offences under special statutes such fear or danger to victims and witnesses may be more common and pronounced, in the case of victims and witnesses involved or concerned with some serious offences, fear may be no less important. Obviously, if the trial in the case of special offences is to be fair both to the accused as well as to the victims/witnesses, then there is no reason as to why it should not be equally fair in the case of other general offences of serious nature falling under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the fear or danger or rather the likelihood thereof that is common to both cases. That is why several general statutes in other countries provide for victim and witness protection.”

[15] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, however, submits that there are prima facie materials of Sections 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act in lieu of Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

[16] The Court has considered the submissions of both sides and also the materials placed in the record, and the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and also of this Court as cited by both the sides. In fact, in this case, the IO did not collect the documents of treatment of the victim receiving outside the State, during the period of investigation and before that submitted the chargesheet. What the victim has stated before the learned Magistrate and also before the IO, as indicated in earlier paragraphs, shows the accused was previously known to her whom she would call as „Dadu‟. Therefore, she had some sort of trust on him. Prima facie, there are materials indicating that he took her inside one abandoned hut, molested her, throttled her and put poison in her mouth. The Medical Officer found certain ligature mark on her neck, and the SFSL report has also prima facie established the presence of Organophosphorus in her stomach. Even if the documents which were submitted from the side of the informant regarding her treatment in AIIMS are not taken into consideration as same are not part of the chargesheet, still the acquisitions are very serious and grave in nature.

[17] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel, submits that on any stringent condition the accused may be released on bail, and even he will not enter into the locality of the victim. Though learned counsel has also given much emphasis that he is a poor fish-seller and, therefore, chance of influencing the witnesses is lesser, however, the chance of absconding or influencing witnesses are not the sole criteria to consider the bail application. The gravity and heinousness of the offence and punishment prescribed therefore are also relevant to decide the bail application.

[18] Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations as well as the mode and manner of commission of alleged offences and the materials collected by the IO, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage to the accused person. Therefore, the bail application is rejected.

[19] The CD, along with the SFSL report, be returned to the learned PP with a copy of this order. Learned Trial Court record be re-consigned with a copy of this order.

[20] The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.