Tripura HC Orders SIT Probe After Son Allegedly Assaulted Inside Police Station, CCTV Footage Seized
The Tripura High Court found police inaction shocking after a preliminary inquiry confirmed injuries, yet an FIR was registered only after the court intervened; a Special Investigation Team has been constituted, with West Tripura police excluded entirely.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura, led by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit, has ordered a Special Investigation Team to probe two FIRs arising from the alleged assault of Saikat Saha — son of petitioner Smt. Ratna Roy — including an assault that allegedly occurred inside the East Agartala Police Station in the presence of police personnel. The court seized CCTV footage from that police station at an early stage, expressed deep dissatisfaction at the State's handling of the matter, and directed that no officer attached to West Tripura District shall be associated with the investigation. The order was passed on 14 May 2026 in W.P.(Crl.) No.06/2026.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Smt. Ratna Roy, her husband, and her son Saikat Saha reside in Agartala and were carrying out construction on their premises. A neighbour, Ranjana Dey, lodged a complaint with the Agartala Municipal Corporation. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation on 18 March 2026 and contended that the construction was in accordance with an approved plan; no adverse order was passed.
Thereafter, Rabindranath Ghosh, described as an employee of the Corporation, and Joy Debnath, described as a Special Police Officer, allegedly began visiting the construction site and stopping work. The petitioner alleged that they demanded Rs. 2 lakhs as illegal gratification from her son, threatening that construction would not be allowed to proceed unless the amount was paid.
On 4 April 2026 at around 10.45 pm, Ghosh, Debnath, and others allegedly came to the family's rented house, called out Saikat Saha, and assaulted him. When the petitioner and her husband tried to intervene, they too were beaten. Ghosh allegedly threatened that he would not allow the construction for one year.
Ghosh and Debnath then allegedly took Saikat Saha to the East Agartala Police Station (Respondent No. 4). Inside the station, in the presence of police personnel, he was allegedly assaulted again, humiliated, and tortured. The petitioner alleged that the two men touched her son's private parts and attempted to disrobe him. Police personnel present allegedly took no action. The events were said to have been captured on CCTV cameras at the station. Saikat Saha was also allegedly made to sign blank papers while at the station.
The petitioner secured her son's release on bail on 5 April 2026. The following day, 6 April 2026, she lodged a complaint with Respondent No. 5 police station naming the accused persons. No FIR was registered, no arrest was made, and no investigation was initiated. She also wrote to the Commissioner of the Corporation on the same date. On 13 April 2026, she filed applications to the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura and to the Director General of Police, Tripura. When nothing happened, she filed the writ petition on 29 April 2026, seeking registration of an FIR and directions to preserve the CCTV footage of the East Agartala Police Station.
Preliminary Inquiry, Delayed FIR, and the Court's Intervention
The writ petition was listed before the Division Bench on 6 May 2026 after a mention by the petitioner's counsel. The Public Prosecutor accepted notice for all respondents but sought time to obtain instructions. The court observed that the writ had been filed on 29 April 2026 and that it was inexplicable that the State's Public Prosecutor could not get instructions even after one week, given the serious allegations in the petition.
The court adjourned the matter to 12 May 2026, directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit, and — critically — directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura at Agartala to seize the CCTV footage of the East Agartala Police Station in the meantime. The CJM complied, and on 12 May 2026 the court directed him to retain the footage until further orders.
In their counter affidavit, the respondents disclosed that after receipt of the complaint, a preliminary inquiry had been conducted by WSI Nirupa Dey under Section 173(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The preliminary inquiry report dated 16 April 2026 itself revealed that Saikat Saha had sustained injuries consistent with physical assault and that cognizable offences had been committed by Rabindranath Ghosh.
Despite this finding, no FIR was registered until 7 May 2026 — the day after the court entertained the writ petition. FIR EAG No. 46 was then registered against Ghosh and Debnath, but only under Section 117(2), Section 351(2), and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, without any reference to the alleged demand for illegal gratification. The court noted that the gap between 16 April 2026 and 7 May 2026 was left entirely unexplained by the respondents.
Why the Court Found the Preliminary Inquiry Impermissible
The bench identified the resort to a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS as legally impermissible in the circumstances. The allegations in the complaint disclosed offences potentially attracting Section 140(2) and Section 308(2) of the BNS, 2023, as well as Section 130 (assault), and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — several of which carry punishment of seven years and above on conviction. The court held that a preliminary inquiry cannot be conducted where the complaint discloses cognizable offences carrying such sentences, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 1.
The court also noted that under Section 17(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigation into an allegation of the kind made here must be conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an officer of equivalent rank. There was no reference in the respondents' counter affidavit to any such investigation having been assigned to an officer of that rank.
Counter-Narrative in the Counter Affidavit and the Court's Response
The respondents' counter affidavit contained a General Diary entry (R-13) made on 4 April 2026 at 22:35 hours, stating that Saikat Saha had threatened the accused persons on telephone with dire consequences, and that he was accordingly arrested at 23:05 hours and brought to the East Agartala Police Station. The affidavit stated he was later released on bail after a medical examination that recorded only that he had consumed alcohol, with no mention of injuries.
The court found this account difficult to reconcile with the preliminary inquiry report of 16 April 2026, which recorded injuries on Saikat Saha consistent with physical assault. The bench observed that the medical examination report relied upon by the State Prosecutor mentioned only alcohol consumption and nothing else, while the preliminary inquiry report told a different story.
Separately, FIR EAG No. 38 dated 7 April 2026 had been registered against Saikat Saha under Section 132 and Section 351(2) of the BNS on a complaint by a Corporation employee, alleging that he had obstructed the complainant from discharging official duty by threatening Rabindranath Ghosh over telephone. The court expressed doubt that Section 132 was attracted to such an allegation. It also noted that the offence under Section 351(2) as applied to Saikat Saha was bailable and non-cognizable, yet he had been immediately arrested for an alleged telephonic threat without the respondents following the procedure of issuing notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The bench described this as a violation of the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The bench described the contrast between the treatment of Saikat Saha and the treatment of his alleged assailants as “stark and very disturbing.”
The court also expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that police personnel who were present at the East Agartala Police Station during the alleged incident on 4 April 2026 — and who allegedly did nothing to prevent it — had not been issued even a show cause notice or placed under suspension pending enquiry under the applicable Service Rules. Joy Debnath, a co-accused in FIR No. 46, had merely been transferred out of Agartala by his superior officer on 12 May 2026, again without any show cause notice.
Legal Basis for Directing an SIT
The bench drew on a line of Supreme Court authority to justify constituting an SIT and monitoring the investigation. From Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578, the court cited the proposition that where deficiency in investigation is visible, courts must deal with it appropriately, and that in appropriate cases a Special Investigation Team may be constituted with directions to Central and State Governments to render all required assistance.
From Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160, the court cited the principle that constitutional courts can direct investigation by another agency where a grave suspicion arises about the investigation, and that a fair trial is difficult without a fair investigation. This position was also reiterated in Violence in Lakhimpur Kheri (U.P.) Leading to Loss of Life, In re, (2022) 9 SCC 337.
From Amar Nath Chaubey v. Union of India, (2021) 11 SCC 804, the court cited the holding that where police does not perform its statutory duty or is remiss, the court cannot abdicate its constitutional obligation, and that “a fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The bench expressed that in view of the respondents' conduct and the positions taken in their counter affidavit, it was unrealistic to expect an unbiased investigation from them, and recorded its deep dissatisfaction at the manner in which the matter had been handled.
Order
The Division Bench directed investigation into both FIR EAG No. 38 dated 7 April 2026 and FIR EAG No. 46 dated 7 May 2026 by a Special Investigation Team. The SIT is to be headed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, with two or three officials from the Tripura Police Crime Branch nominated by the DGP, Tripura, and the Superintendent of Police of Khowai District. The investigation is to be supervised by an officer of Inspector General rank to be nominated by the DGP, Tripura. No police officer attached to West Tripura District is to be associated with the investigation.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura at Agartala, who had taken custody of the CCTV footage of the East Agartala Police Station, was directed to hand it over under proper acknowledgment to the IG of Police supervising the investigation.
The IG associated as supervising authority was directed to file a status report in a sealed cover. The Agartala Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, was impleaded suo motu as Respondent No. 6 and directed to file a counter affidavit. The matter is listed before the same bench on 17 June 2026.