News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 50
Agartala, January 08, 2026 : The Tripura High Court has refused to grant bail to Raju Barman, the prime accused in the sensational 2024 murder of Bharat Ratna Sangha Club secretary Durga Prasanna Deb, also known as Viki, holding that there are strong prima facie materials showing his central role in the crime and attempts to destroy evidence.
The order was passed by Justice S. Datta Purkayastha on January 8, 2026, while dismissing a bail application filed by Barman’s wife under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court observed that the gravity of the offence, the accused’s alleged position as the mastermind, and the risk of witness intimidation outweighed the long period of custody already undergone.
The case relates to Airport Police Station Case No. 37 of 2024, registered under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Arms Act. The murder took place on the night of April 30, 2024, when Deb was shot while sitting inside his parked vehicle at Hatipara in Agartala. He was declared dead at ILS Hospital shortly thereafter.
During the hearing, the defence argued that Barman had been in custody since July 10, 2024, amounting to over 16 months, and sought bail on grounds of parity, noting that several co-accused had already been released. Senior counsel for the accused also questioned the evidentiary value of confessional statements made by two women co-accused and alleged that the prosecution had filed a partial charge sheet within the statutory period to defeat a claim for default bail.
The State, however, strongly opposed the plea, asserting that Barman had absconded after the murder, was arrested from Assam after issuance of warrants and proclamation, and had a long criminal history involving serious offences. The prosecution maintained that he had orchestrated the crime, coordinated with co-accused through frequent phone calls, and later attempted to erase digital evidence by replacing CCTV hard disks from his residence.
After examining the case diary, charge sheets, and witness statements, the High Court found prima facie material suggesting a motive linked to control of the Bharat Ratna Sangha Club and alleged extortion of commission money from contractors. The court also took note of allegations that Barman had threatened the deceased prior to the murder and later interfered with electronic evidence, actions that raised serious concerns about the fairness of the trial if bail were granted.
Rejecting the parity argument, the court held that the role attributed to Barman was qualitatively different from that of other accused who had secured bail, including those released by the Sessions Court and the Supreme Court. It emphasised that mere length of custody or the likelihood of a prolonged trial cannot, by themselves, justify bail in a grave and pre-planned murder case.
The High Court concluded that releasing the accused at this stage could lead to further tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses. The bail application was accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that observations made in the order would not prejudice the trial on merits
Case Reference : B.A. No. 114 of 2025: Pinki Saha Roy vs. State of Tripura, decided on 8 January 2026; counsel for the petitioner were Samrat Kar Bhowmik, Senior Advocate, along with E. Darlong, S. Bal and S.H. Roy, Advocates, while the State was represented by Sankar Lodh, Special Public Prosecutor, and S. Debnath, Advocate.
