Crl. Petn. No. 46/2016. Case: Rahima Khatun Vs Panna Ahamed and Ors.. Tripura High Court

Case NumberCrl. Petn. No. 46/2016
CounselFor Appellant: A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate, M. Choudhury, D. Kar and S. Dey, Advocates and For Respondents: A. Ghosh, P.P., A. Bhattacharjee, P. Saha, R. Mukherjee and R. Sinha, Advocates
JudgesDeepak Gupta, C.J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 107, 397(3), 439, 439(2), 482
Judgement DateJanuary 31, 2017
CourtTripura High Court

Judgment:

Deepak Gupta, C.J., (At Agartala)

  1. The perennial question of bail or jail is once again confronting this Court in this criminal petition filed by the alleged victim of rape. The petitioner in this criminal petition is seriously questioning the legality of the order dated 17-10-2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura in Bail Application No. 255 of 2016 granting bail to the accused-respondent and is seeking the cancellation thereof.

  2. At the outset, Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the criminal petition on two grounds, namely,: (i) the petitioner, who is the victim of rape, has no locus standi to file the case and it is the State, which alone has the authority to file such petition and (ii) there is a specific provision for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.; Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. In my opinion, in the light of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 16 SCC 190, there can no be any dispute that an application for cancellation of bail at the behest of the victim of the crime is maintainable and that there is no bar in invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail by her. This is what the Apex Court said:

    "29. We must note one more objection raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that Respondents 2 to 4 had no locus to file an application seeking cancellation of bail. It is contended that Respondents 3 and 4 had not even filed any application before the trial court. They later on joined Respondent 2 to move the High Court by filing SLP (Crl.) application to quash and set aside the order granting bail. Mr. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal learned counsel appearing for these respondents pointed out in reply that the criminal application filed in the High Court was moved under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. Para 2 of the said criminal application stated as follows:

    2. The applicants submit that they are residents of Jalgaon. They are citizens of India. They are taxpayers. They are beneficiaries of various policies and amenities provided by the Municipal Corporation to the citizens of Jalgaon. The applicants are victims of the offence committed by Respondent 2 along with other accused. The applicants have locus standi to seek the cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent 2 and the other accused persons.

  3. It was submitted by the learned counsel that Respondent 2 had appeared before the Sessions Judge to assist the prosecution, which is recorded in the order passed granting bail. As far as filing of the aforesaid criminal application before the High Court by Respondents 2 to 4 is concerned, the same has not been specifically objected to in the High Court, and therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to look into any such objection. Now, this objection is being raised in this Court. The learned counsel submitted that Respondents 2 to 4 had invoked the inherent jurisdiction...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT