Manipur High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Manipur on 26 July, 2022
Author: Mv Muralidaran
Bench: Mv Muralidaran
SHAMURAILA Page |1
TPAM SUSHIL IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SHARMA AT IMPHAL
Date: AB No. 43 of 2019
2022.08.12
16:30:25 +05'30' Shri Wahengbam Krishnakanta Singh @ Khoiba, aged
about 38 years old, S/o W. Lakh Singh, resident of
Hiyanglam Awang Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S.
Hiyanglam, Kakching District, Manipur - 795103.
---Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Principal
Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat
(South Block), P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur- 795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur having its
office at Police Headquarters, Babupara, P.O & P.S.
Imphal, Manipur-795001.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Imphal West District
having is office at SP Office Complex, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Officer-in-charge, Mayang Imphal Police Station,
P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795132.
---Respondents
AB No. 43 of 2019
Page |2
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner :: Mr. L. Romen Meetei, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, PP
Date of Hearing &
Judgment & Order :: 26.07.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in event of arrest in connection with the FIR No.36(3)2008 on the file of Mayang Imphal Police Station registered under Section 302/34 IPC read with Section 25(1-C) of Arms Act read with Sections 17/18/19/20 of UA (P) Act.
2. Heard Mr. L. Romen Meetei, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail alleging that on 5.8.2019, when he was away from his residence for his duties and returned back to the house, the family members informed that the police personnel of Mayang Imphal Police Station came and enquired about the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not committed any crime, he did not take it as seriously. Later when he enquired through the local MLA, the petitioner has been informed to appear AB No. 43 of 2019 Page |3 before Mayang Imphal Police Station in connection with FIR No.36(3)2008. According to the petitioner, he is not at all related to the said FIR. However, the petitioner is now having a reasonable apprehension to be arrested in connection with the above referred FIR. Hence, this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case, for which he has been searched at his home in his absence. That apart, the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that he is now having reasonable apprehension to be arrested in connection with FIR No.36(3)2008. If the petitioner is arrested, then it will be very difficult for him to tolerate the hardships of the police as well as judicial custody, as he has to look after his family members by doing bricklaying work.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no cogent materials against the petitioner to implicate or array him as an accused and also there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner had committed the criminal acts as alleged in the FIR.
7. The learned counsel urged that since there is an apprehension, the petitioner might be arrested by the respondent police AB No. 43 of 2019 Page |4 anytime and also there is apprehension that in the prevailing law and order situation of the State, there might be a danger to the life of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel next submitted that by the interim order dated 8.8.2019, this Court directed the respondent police not to arrest the petitioner till 29.08.2019 and the said interim order continues till date. Thus, a prayer is made to grant regular anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the investigation reveals his involvement in the crime. Since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail and he is very much required for examination after arrest.
10. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
11. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not committed any offence and since the respondent police visited the house of the petitioner and enquired about him and also directed the petitioner to appear in connection with the FIR No.36(3)2008 before Mayang Imphal Police Station, the petitioner apprehending his arrest in AB No. 43 of 2019 Page |5 the above referred FIR. According to the petitioner, there is no material against him which can show that prima facie the petitioner had committed the acts alleged against him.
12. Admittedly, the allegation levelled against the petitioner cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same would involve oral and documentary evidence.
13. On a perusal of the FIR, this Court finds that the said FIR was registered on 17.3.2008 for the commission of murder with common intention by some unknown person/armed person/miscreant. Admittedly, in the FIR, the petitioner name not mentioned. However, on 5.8.2019 i.e. nearly after eleven years, the police personnel of Mayang Imphal Police Station visited the house of the petitioner and enquired him in the absence of the petitioner. It is stated that when the petitioner enquired through the local MLA, he has been informed to appear before the police station in connection with FIR No.36(3)2008. Immediately, the petitioner has approached the Court and filed the petition.
14. On 8.8.2019, when the petition came up for hearing, this Court passed the following order:
"The petitioner filed this petition U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for the case in AB No. 43 of 2019 Page |6 FIR No. 36(3)2008 MIPS U/s 302/34 IPC and 25(1-C) Arms Act r/w 17/18/19/20 UA(P) Act.
The matter was registered in the year 2008, but it is apprehension of the petitioner that some police are searching for this petitioner. Therefore, because of the apprehension of the respondent police, he filed this anticipatory bail petition.
Admittedly, the case was registered in the year 2008, but his name is not found placed in the FIR. Therefore, Ld. PP is directed to take notice and verify and file objection on 29.08.2019.
The respondent police are directed not to arrest the petitioner till 29.08.2019.
Post the matter on 29.08.2019."
15. The aforesaid interim order directing the respondent police not to arrest the petitioner was extended periodically and on 12.07.2022, while extending the interim order, this Court passed the following order:
"Heard Mr. L. Romen Meetei, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned PP for the State respondents.AB No. 43 of 2019
Page |7 [2] Since Mr. Samarjit, learned PP has already filed counter affidavit, he wants time to argue the case.
[3] Therefore, post the matter for argument on 26.07.2022. Till then, earlier interim order is extended."
16. Accordingly, the petition was listed today and this Court heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Since the offence is of the year 2008 and the respondent police enquired about the petitioner in connection with FIR No.36(3)2008 only on 5.8.2019, this Court finds that the apprehension of the petitioner to be arrested in connection with the above FIR is reasonable. It is to be noted that as against the interim order dated 8.8.2019 and its extension, the respondent State has not preferred any appeal.
17. When a person apprehends arrest and approaches a Court for anticipatory bail, his apprehension, has to be based on concrete facts relatable a specific offence or particular of offences and not vague or general allegations. Applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his version of the facts. In the instant case, the petitioner has narrated the facts relating to the offence and also apprehension in the petition. AB No. 43 of 2019
Page |8
18. The provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It relates to personal liberty of a particular person and such a provision calls for liberal interpretation of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
19. Section 438 of Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates in the beginning statement itself that when a person has a reasonable apprehension to believe that they can be arrested on an accusation for commitment of a non-bailable offence, they can move the High Court or the Court of Sessions for grant of an anticipatory bail. The power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised by the Court in very exceptional cases. The Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause and a reasonable ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 Cr.P.C. protects the right to life and personal liberty of such persons by providing them with a remedy against frivolous detention. In a country where rifts and rivalries are common, its citizens should have a remedy which prevents disgracing their right to life and personal liberty.
20. In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in respect of application for anticipatory bail. In paragraph 25.10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: AB No. 43 of 2019
Page |9 "25.10. We all also reproduce para 112 of the judgment in Siddaram Satingappa case, wherein the Court delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(g) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of AB No. 43 of 2019 P a g e | 10 the Penal Code, 1860 the Court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."
21. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. No inflexible AB No. 43 of 2019 P a g e | 11 guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. It should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case in consonance with the legislative intention.
22. The law is well settled that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible, but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
23. It is the duty of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in proper way to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. If Courts do not interfere, we are troubling the path on destruction. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, decided on 11.11.2020. AB No. 43 of 2019
P a g e | 12
24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any indication that the petitioner will flee the process of law and the undertaking given by the petitioner that there is no likelihood of his absconding or misusing his liberty if enlarged on bail and the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed and also the interim order not to arrest the petitioner exists till date, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if regular anticipatory bail considered in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner by imposing appropriate conditions.
25. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, in the event the petitioner is arrested in FIR No.36(3)2008 registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25(1-C) of Arms Act read with Sections 17/18/19/20 of the UA (P) Act on the file of Mayang Imphal Police Station, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount.
(b) The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond.AB No. 43 of 2019
P a g e | 13
(c) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.
(d) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a week between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders.
(e) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.
(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent police is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(g) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
It is made clear that this Court has not delve into the merits of the case and the observations made in this order are limited for consideration of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil AB No. 43 of 2019