SATABDI ROY ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED SRI SUMIT CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the close relative of the accused against whom an FIR was lodged on 04.08.2019 for commission of offences under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). Section 302 of IPC was added when the injured expired on 16.08.2019. The accused was granted bail by the Sessions Court upon which the Government had approached the High Court. The High Court by a judgment dated 18.02.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No.56 of 2019 and Criminal Petition No.57 of 2019 after detailed consideration, cancelled the bail order of the present accused and other co-accused involved in the said case. Just over a month later this regular bail application is filed.

(2.) Ordinarily perhaps this application should have been heard by the same learned Judge who had cancelled the bail of the accused. However, on account of spread of corona virus, the High Court is functioning at reduced strength. Every day one Single Judge handles all urgent cases. On account of such extraordinary circumstances, I heard learned counsel for the petitioner on this bail application.

(3.) No changes in circumstances are pointed out since the High Court by a reasoned detailed judgment cancelled the bail of the accused on 18.02.2019. In the said judgment, learned Single Judge had made following observations: