Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Tripura · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1698 (TRI)

Md. Rajib Miah on behalf of accused Tanuja Khatun v. The State of Tripura

Crl.Petn./60/2025 · 2025-11-17

S Datta Purkayastha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl.Petn.No.60 of 2025 Md. Rajib Miah on behalf of accused Tanuja Khatun ……Petitioner(s). Vs. The State of Tripura ……Respondent(s). For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P. Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA _O_R_D_E_R_ 17.11.2025 Heard Mr. Saugat Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the State- respondent. Mr. Datta, learned counsel, submits that the present petitioner had earlier filed one bail application along with another accused person bearing BA No.68 of 2025 in connection with case No.ST (T-1) 11 of 2025 for modification of the bail order under Section 483 of BNSS, and the said petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 04.08.2025. The petitioner has again now sought for further modification of the said order of this Court passed by another learned Coordinate Bench. Learned counsel also submits that before filing of the instant petition, another interim application bearing I.A. No.1 of 2025 was also filed in connection with the previously disposed of bail application No.68 of 2025 after disposal of the said case praying for further modification of the order passed by the High Court, inasmuch as the learned Sessions Court rejected their such modification prayer on the ground that the High Court had already partially modified the conditions of the bail bond of the present petitioner. While filing the petition, in the cause title of the petition both the provision of Section 483 of BNSS as well as Section 428 of BNSS have been mentioned by the petitioner, whereas though her relief is primarily sought for under Section 483 of BNSS. Therefore, the registration of the case by the Registry as a criminal petition appears to be defective, rather, it ought to have been registered as bail application. Learned counsel of both sides agrees with this view of the Court. Accordingly, Registry is directed to re-register it as bail application and place it before the appropriate Court within one week. JUDGE Dinashree RUDRADE EP BANERJEE Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE Date: 2025.11.18 17:15:30 +05'30'