Anticipatory Bail Granted Amid Discrepancies In Injury Reports: Tripura HC

Where medical evidence fails to prima facie support grave charges like attempted murder, pre-arrest protection must prevail over speculative accusations. Highlighting discrepancies between initial hospital records and subsequent injury certificates, the High Court of Tripura granted anticipatory bail to an accused facing severe charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In a single-judge bench proceeding, Justice S. Datta Purkayasth presiding over the matter granted pre-arrest bail after examining the case diary and medical documents submitted by the parties.

Court's Observations and Directions

Analyzing the nature of injuries and medical reports on record, the High Court observed that the initial medical documents noted cut injuries resulting from accidental trauma rather than a deliberate physical assault. Evaluating the medical certificate alongside the injury report from GBP Hospital, the Court noted that the injuries were simple in nature and caused by a blunt object, making the application of Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 a matter to be tested during trial.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the places and nature of the injuries, and weapon used for the same, it appears that applicability of Section 109 is to be judged further during trial. However, prima facie materials are there for offence under Section 117(2), BNS which is bailable in nature."

The Court has following directions:

"It is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest the accused person namely Bikash Das shall be released on furnishing of bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority on condition that:
(i) he will note his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in a week for next 3 months, or till charge sheet is submitted, whichever is earlier,

(ii)he will regularly attend the Court to face trial,

(iii)he will also make him available before the I.O. for the purpose of investigation, whenever so requires,

(iv)he will not try to make any contact with the victim or any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade her or them from divulging the truth before the Court,"

Background

The dispute originated from an FIR registered at Airport P.S. under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that the applicant lured the victim out under the pretext of delivering a birthday cake and indiscriminately assaulted her with a 'Dao' (sharp weapon). The applicant filed an application seeking pre-arrest bail, contending that the case was one of road traffic accident or accidental trauma as recorded in the initial OPD ticket of Gandhigram PHC. The defense counsel also pointed out an ongoing love affair between the parties and alleged false implication.

Opposing the application, the Public Prosecutor argued that the accused launched a deadly attack using a sharp cutting weapon, which was seized by police, and relied on injury certificates from GBP Hospital and Gandhigram PHC. The Court, however, observed inconsistencies in the medical documents, noting that the words mentioning an attack with a sharp object were added subsequently to the medical certificate and that the injury report described simple injuries caused by a blunt object. Finding that the bailable offence under Section 117(2) was prima facie attracted while Section 109 required trial, the Court allowed the pre-arrest bail application.

Case Details:
Case No.: AB No.50 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:THC:1194
Case Title: Bikash Das v. The State of Tripura
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bhaskar Deb, Advocate; Mr. Ramprasad Gope, Advocate; Mr. Victor Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raju Datta, PP.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TRI) 405