[1] This application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Agartala Women P.S. Case No.02 of 2026 under Sections 329 (4), 74, 75(1), (i), 109, 115(2), 304(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and added Section 326 (f) of BNS, 2023

[2] The FIR has been lodged by one Smt. Paramita Roy alleging inter-alia that on 08.01.2026 at around 10.10 pm, some land Mafias tried to trespassed into her house in drunken condition with intention to harass and molest her and those persons are the present petitioner, namely, Sanjit Deb, Sri Subal Sutradhar, Sri Sanjay Sutradhar @ Nalu and Sri Kartik Deb. She has also alleged that all of them physically assaulted her, outraged her modesty and touched her private part and also hit on her lower abdomen during her menstruation period and they had the intention to rape her. It is further stated that they also snatched away gold chain and ring an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from her house. Further allegation as was given in the FIR is that they tried to kill her by pouring petrol on her person with a match stick and they also had the intention to kill her husband and to do some wrongs with her and her two daughters.

[3] The FIR was received by the police authority on 09.01.2026 and was registered under Sections 329 (4), 74, 75(1), (i), 109, 115(2), 304(2), 3(5), of BNS, 2023 and subsequently, Section 326 (f) of BNS, 2023 was added.

[4] Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with some concocted stories; and true facts are that on that day at around 9 pm. the husband of the informant along with one Ramkrishna Deb and another Raju Deb attacked the petitioner and another Sri Nidhu Deb and when one person namely, Sri Bishnu Das went to save them, he was given a dao blow by the husband of the informant on his leg. Thereafter, the local people gathered and rescued them and all the injured persons were treated at IGM Hospital.

[5] Concerning the said incident, said Bishu Das lodged one FIR bearing no. West Agartala P.S. Case No.6 of 2026 under Sections 118(2)/126(2)/351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that as per the FIR lodged by the said Bishnu Das, the husband of the informant started living in that locality since 3 years ago and he would obstruct the people in their movement in front of his house after 10 pm. and this way, he attacked at least 10-15 persons without any reason earlier with the aid of this two brother-in-laws and on the said date also at around 3 pm. in the afternoon, the husband of the informant physically assaulted one Tanmoy Deb.

[6] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel further submits that the husband of the informant was arrested in connection with said FIR lodged by Bishu Das and in the forwarding report, the investigating officer clearly mentioned that the husband of the informant was a habitual offender of that area and he would not bother anybody of that area and often, he would attack the local people by fists, blows and kicks and whenever anybody would raise any protest against him he would put forward his wife and daughter with the allegation of molestation etc. and he has some associates from his in-laws side. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel also submits that after arrest in the said case, he was initially remanded to the judicial custody on 10.01.2026 and on 17.01.2026, he was released on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala.

[7] Mr. Lodh also refers some representations submitted by the local people of the that area to the police station on other occasions alleging that the husband of the informant along with Ramkrishna Dey and Raju Deb were engaged in prostitution, land brokery and other anti social activities and even all the people of that locality were felling unsecured at their hand. One of such representations was submitted on 09.01.2026 signed by 82 persons. Another such representation was submitted to the police authority on 06.06.2025 by some persons stating that the husband of the informant was harassing and torturing the local people since long and he was identifying himself as Mafia and even he reached to that extent that at any time he might kill any person. Learned counsel also submits that it is not the present petitioner rather the husband of the informant who actually attacked the present petitioner and another and physically assaulted them and now to save himself, he has got the present FIR lodged through his wife, falsely implicated them in the instant case.

[8] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel further submits that among the offences under which the FIR has been registered, Sections 74, 109 and 304(2) are non-bailabe offences and maximum prescribed punishment under Section 74 is imprisonment upto 5 years, prescribed punishment under Section 304(2) of BNS, the imprisonment upto 3 years and there is no ingredient of Section 109 of BNS available in the present case. Finally, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel prays for granting pre-arrest bail of the present petitioner.

[9] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel in support of his contention, relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457. Said case was registered under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. While granting pre-arrest bail to the appellant, Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that the nature of allegations and the matter which are to be investigated by the investigating agency were primarily based on the documentary evidence and that the offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation and nothing was there that he had obstructed the investigation.

[10] In addition to above, it is also further observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the anticipatory bail can be granted when custodial interrogation is not essential particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention.

[11] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel further relies on another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 815, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that omissions of certain material facts in the FIR affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act.

[12] The said judgment has been referred by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel to support his submission regarding subsequent addition of Section 326(f) of BNS on the prayer of the investigating officer that the petitioner and others set fire on the motorcycle of the husband of the informant on the date of alleged incident but such important fact was not mentioned in the FIR.

[13] Mr. R. Datta, learned PP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail submitting that sufficient incriminating materials are there in the case diary against the present petitioner dis-entitling him from getting the benefit of pre-arrest bail. He also refers to the relevant pages of said case diary to support his submission.

[14] This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and has also note of the materials placed in the Case Diary.

[15] It appears that there are prima-facie materials that the accused petitioner and other accused persons illegally entered into the house of the informant, physically assaulted her and her husband by fists, blows and kicks, outraged her modesty, damaged her house and boundary fencing. It is also the statement of the informant that they tried to pore kerosene oil on her with an intention to kill her. The other near relatives of the informant i.e. her brother and sisters were also physically assaulted when they came to rescue them. There are also prima-facie materials that the motorcycle of the husband of the informant was set on fire. The police also seized one burnt motorcycle and one burnt bicycle in this regard. In her statement before the Magistrate, the informant has further stated that she was put inside the toilet by the accused persons wherein the door was pierced by them to kill her. According to the informant, all the accused persons did this act for grabbing their homestead land. They also damaged the CCTV hard disc of her house. Other close relatives of the informants are also examined by the investigating officer who have also supported the prosecution story.

[16] 2[two] neighbouring people are also examined by the investigating officer but they are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence. Though there appears some improvement in the statement of the informant subsequently but it is not the proper stage to judge the veracity of the prosecution case by critical analysis of the same. Trial is yet to begin and even charge-sheet is not filed. It appears that the FIR of West Agartala P.S. Case No.06 of 2026 was lodged in respect of the incident occurred on 08.01.2026 at around 9 pm in the night, whereby it was stated that the present petitioner and Sri Nidhu Deb were attacked with a Dao blow by the husband of the informant and to save them from dao blows, the informant of said FIR sustained injuries; and the FIR of the present case was lodged describing in an incident of same date at 10.10. pm against present petitioner and others. Therefore, the said incident may be result of retaliation.

[17] On consideration of the materials available in the case diary as discussed above, it appears that it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is rejected and disposed of.

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

Reconsign the CD to the learned P.P.