Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 218 (GAU)

P. Sumati Devi v. State of Manipur

2005-03-14

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2005
Heard Mr.Kh.Binoy Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned P.P appearing for the State respondents. 2. For the purpose of application for pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., this court and the Court of Sessions Judge have the concurrent jurisdiction. In respect of the present FIR being FIR No. 203(6)2000 IPS U/S 467/469/471/472/120-B IPC, the application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail filed by the present petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East had been rejected by an order dated 4.12.2004 passed in Cril.Misc.(B) Case No.55/2004. After the rejection of her application u/s 438 Cr.P.C by the Court of Sessions Judge having the concurrent jurisdiction with this Court, the petitioner has filed this application for pre-arrest bail u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, the order refusing bail application does not bar fresh application on later occasion but for filing of fresh bail application, the petitioner should show further development by giving more details so that the court having concurrent jurisdiction could consider the fresh bail application. It is no more res integra that for the purpose of filing fresh bail application, there should be more details and later occasions giving more details and also further developments so that the court can consider the fresh application and coming to a different decision even after the earlier bail petition was rejected. We may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Babu Singh and Ors v. The State of U.P. reported in AIR 1978 SC 527 . It is the bounden duty of the Court to see whether or not the fundamental rights of the citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated or not while considering the application for bail. Personal liberty is deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Art.21 of the Constitution that the crucial power to negate it is great rust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with likely concerned over the cause to the individuals and community. Therefore, deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring must be founded on the most serious consideration relevant to the welfare objectives of society specified in the constitution. Therefore, deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring must be founded on the most serious consideration relevant to the welfare objectives of society specified in the constitution. Such being the settled position of law, this Court in order to decide this application had directed the learned P.P. to produce the Case Diary of the present FIR containing the up to date investigation records made by the concerned I.O. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also had been asked to point out any further development and later occasions giving more details about the involvements or otherwise of the applicant after her bail application for pre-arrest bail had been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East on 4.12.2004. The only submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one of the co-accused, namely Md. Hesamuddin @ Shyam S/O late Md. Angou of Lilong Turel Ahanbi Ubakthong had been released on bail under the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 17.6.2004. From bare perusal of the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, it is clear that the said co-accused Md.Karim was released on bail on 17.6.2004 before her application for pre-arrest bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East on 4.12.2004. It is also clear that the accused, Md. Hesamuddin was in the Police custody and thereafter he was in judicial custody till he was released on bail on 17.6.2004. Such being the situation, the Investigating Authority was given the sufficient opportunity for necessary interrogations of the accused Md.Hesamuddin but as per the bail objection report of the concerned I.O., there is sufficient materials to show that the present petitioner involves in the present FIR and she is also involved in producing false and fake documents for cheating the Government of Manipur. 4. It is a settled position of law that the High Court and the Court of Sessions Judge to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made and to be left free and exercise of their judicial decision to grant the bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and such being the condition, as the case may be, warrant. Similarly they must be left free to refuse bail if the situation of the case so warrant, on consideration similar to those mentioned in section 437 or which are generally considered to be relevant u/s 437 Cr.P.C. therefore, if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court, Court must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for granting such relieves. It cannot leave for decision of the Magistrate concerned u/s 437 Cr.P.C as and when an occasion arises. Such a course will defeat the very object of Section 438 Cr.P.C. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in (1) Gurbarksh Singh, etc. v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632 & (2) Pokar Ram Vs State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1985 SC 969 . Keeping in view of the said ratio laid down by the Apex Court, this Court has carefully perused the Case Diary as well as the bail objection report and also the fresh bail application, i.e. in order to satisfy as to whether a case had been made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. As stated above, the petitioner could not make out further developments and any later occasions for considerations of her case for granting the anticipatory bail after the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East rejected her application for anticipatory bail on 4.12.2004. Even if the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to do so. As the life and liberty of the citizen is too precious, this court minutely and carefully perused the Case Diary of the present FIR produced by the concerned I.O. 6. At this stage, it appears that there are considerable materials on the record for substantiating the allegations against the petitioner and also there is no special ground for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Such sensational matter of taking ex-gratia payment of deceased persons by committing forgery evokes immense public response and hue and cry. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, this bail application has no merit and accordingly is rejected.