[1] This application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with New Capital Complex P.S. Case No.06 of 2026 under Sections 118(2)/324(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and added Section 109 of BNS, 2023

[2] The allegations made in the FIR is that on 10.01.2026 at around 8.20 pm to 8.30 pm, the petitioners called the victim, Biswajit Deb over phone to come to Smart Point Shopping Mall at Indranagar and when he went there, they attacked him with a sharp cutting weapon and tried to kill him. On receiving the injuries, he was admitted at ILS Hospital at Agartala and five numbers of stitches were given around his right eye, and his left eye was also injured severely. When another person, namely Indrajit Deb went to save him, he also received injuries. On hearing the outcry, when the local people gathered there, the miscreants fled away and at the time of departing, they also took away one diamond ring of the victim and also damaged his scooty.

[3] The FIR was received by the police authority on 12.01.2026 i.e. after 2[two] days of the incident and it was initially registered under Sections 118(2)/324(4)/3(5) of BNS and thereafter, Section 109 of the BNS was added therein.

[4] Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the injury as received by the victim on his eyes was not grievous and one cannot die due to such injury and therefore, Sections 109 and 118(2) of BNS were not applicable in this case and Section 324(4) is bailable one. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), (2016) 15 SCC 752, wherein at paragraph No.8, it was observed that to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the Court has to see whether the act was done with intention to commit murder and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

[5] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel also relies on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2025 SCC OnLine 457, wherein at paragraph No.18 it is observed that anticipatory bail can be granted where 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. It is further observed in that case that in the light of the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter was to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court was inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The FIR in that case was registered under Sections 409/219/114 of IPCs.

[6] Finally, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel further relies on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniklal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2025 SC 4321, wherein at paragraph No.30, it was observes by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the most important ingredient to constitute the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is the intention or knowledge. To bring home guilt against an accused under this provision, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the intention of the accused was one of the three kinds mentioned in Section 300 of the IPC. A person commits an offence under Section 307 of the IPC when he has the intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention, does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not.

[7] Mr. R. Datta, learned PP appearing for the State strongly opposing the prayer for granting pre-arrest bail, submits that specific materials are there in the Case Diary that the accused petitioners first uttered that they would kill the victim and thereafter, committed the said crime and, therefore, from such uttering, the intention of the accused petitioners are clear that they intended to kill the victim. Learned P.P. also submits that the anticipatory bail is generally granted in exceptional cases and in the case in hand, there are sufficient materials against both the accused petitioners to attract Sections 109 and 118(2) of the BNS.

[8] In support of his contention, Mr. Datta, learned P.P. relies on few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

               [i] In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.69 that ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases and the judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

               At paragraph No.72, the followings are further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

               72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to safeguard the individual’s personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

               [ii] In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and another, (2019) 20 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that if a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307 of IPC.

               [iii] In the case of Salochna Pardi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, criminal appeal No….. of 2026, arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.18200 of 2025, decided on 06.01.2026, at paragraph No.12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court similarly observes that the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail is to be exercised with circumspection and only in exceptional cases, especially where the allegations prima-facie disclose the commission of serious offences necessitating custodial interrogation.

               [iv] In the case of Sri Vimal Kumar Jwala Prasad Shrivastav vs. the State of Tripura, A.B. No.90 of 2025, decided on 16.01.2026, prayer for pre-arrest bail was rejected by this Court considering certain incriminating materials available in the CD against the said petitioner. The case was relating to withdrawal of huge amount from the account of Tripura Municipal Corporation by using certain fake cheques. The said decision is, however, distinguished with the present case in hand.

[9] This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and gone through the materials placed in the CD.

[10] The parameters which are required to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for pre-arrest bail are laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694, which are as follows:

               112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

               i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

               ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

               iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

               iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

               v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

               vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

               vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

               viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

               ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

               x. 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.

               113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.

               114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of the entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the Judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the Court of Session or the High Court is always available.

[11] On perusal of the case diary, it appears that 2[two] independent witnesses are already examined by the investigating officer, who were present on the spot at the time of alleged incident and one has stated that the victim was assaulted only by fist and blows and prior to the incident, the petitioners uttered that they would kill the victim.

[12] Another eye witness who rescued the victim, however, stated that one of the petitioners, namely Sri Abhijit Dey hit the victim on his eye with a knife but it was slipped and hit just above the eye. He also similarly stated that prior to the incident, the petitioners were uttering that they would kill the victim.

[13] The informant in the FIR stated that 5[five] numbers of stitches were given for the injury occurred just above one of the eye of the victim. The investigating officer has collected the injury report of the victim and it appears that the Medical Officer found one lacerated injury [skin-deep] over the right eyebrow which according to the said Medical Officer, was fresh wound but severe but non-grievous. The said Medical Officer also simultaneously stated that the said injury was non-grievous in nature and is caused due to impact of hard and blunt object. Another swelling injury was also found over the peri- orbital region of the left eye which according to the Medical Officer may be grievous as it had impaired the left eyebrow. It was also probably caused due to impact of hard and blunt object.

[14] As it appears, the Medical Officer may be little confused about the nature of grievous injury in it’s legal connotation. There is no indication in the injury report that any stitch was given on any such injury. The injury on the peri-orbital area on left eye was only swelling. To what extent, it had impaired said is also not clear and how it had impaired is also not discussed in the said injury report. However, according to the said Medical Officer, both the injuries were caused by hard or blunt object and not by any sharp cutting weapon, like knife.

[15] As already indicated above, one of the eye witnesses stated that the victim was assaulted only by fist and blows and such version is corroborating the medial report. In such a situation, prima facie the applicability of Sections 109 and 118(2) becomes a bit doubtful. There is no allegation that the petitioners are having bad antecedent or they are involving any other similar nature of offence or any other criminal offence. The prosecution has also not pressed for custodial interrogation of the accused petitioners on any particular ground. Out of two eye-witnesses, one who stated about assault by fists and blows, has also not supported the allegation of snatching the ring.

[16] Considering all these aspects, the bail prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, namely Sri Rupak Sutradhar and Sri Abhijit Dey in connection with NCC P.S. Case No.06 of 2026, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty thousand] each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, on the conditions that they will give their attendance once in a week at NCC police station for the next 3[three] months or till the charge-sheet is submitted by the investigating officer whichever is earlier; they will not leave the State of Tripura without prior permission of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala; they will appear before the investigating officer to face the interrogation whenever requires; they will regularly attend the Court to face the trial and they will not try to terrorize or influence any person acquainted with the fact of the case to dissuade him or them to divulge the truth before the Court or to the investigating officer.

With such observations and directions, this bail application is disposed of.

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

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