Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 97 (MAN)

Moirangthem Megha v. State of Manipur

2015-06-12

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned PP for the State. 2. The present application has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR Case No. 147(11) 2014 Kakching P.S. u/Ss 384/325/307/34 IPC and 25(1-C) Arms Act pending investigation and trial of the said FIR case. The petitioner has approached this Court after his prayer for grant of similar relief had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal vide his order dated 3.12.2014. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 29.10.2014 alleging kidnapping and raping of his daughter by the informant of FIR case No. 147(11) Kakching P.S., namely, Sh. Japan Singh and 4 others. As the police did not entertain the said complaint, the wife of the petitioner filed a criminal complaint petition before the learned CJM, Thoubal against the said informant, Sh. Japan Singh and 4 others which was forwarded to the Thoubal Police Station for investigation. Since no action was taken, the wife of the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court on 17.12.2014 by filing a writ petition for directing the Chief Secretary, Manipur, Director General of Police, Manipur and the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District, Manipur and the Officer-in-Charge, Thoubal Police Station to register an FIR case against the said informant, Sh. Japan Singh and 4 others. According to the petitioner, in the meantime, the said Sh. Japan Singh lodged a false report to the Officer-in-Charge, Kakching Police Station against the petitioner and others which led to the registration of FIR case No. 147(11) Kakching P.S.. Soon thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal by filing an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. and was granted the interim relief. Later, the said application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal vide order dated 3.12.2014 passed in Cril. M(AB) No. 91/14/87/2014 observing that the objection report clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the earlier interim anticipatory bail granted was cancelled. Later, the said application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal vide order dated 3.12.2014 passed in Cril. M(AB) No. 91/14/87/2014 observing that the objection report clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the earlier interim anticipatory bail granted was cancelled. After rejection of the application by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal, on 3.12.2014, the petitioner has preferred this application u/s 438Cr.P.C. before this Court on 19.12.2014 and this Court by an interim order passed on 19.12.2014 granted interim relief directing that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the said case, he shall be released on bail. The matter is taken up for final hearing today. The learned PP has produced the relevant records/case diary. 3. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal was summarily rejected without proper application of mind, without considering the merit of the case and discussing the materials on record but merely by observing that the objection report clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused without any discussion on the objection report as clearly evident in the order dated 3.12.2014. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the aforesaid rejection order is prima-facie unsustainable as it does not reflect due application of mind while rejecting the bail application. Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner also has submitted that after this Court granted the interim relief, the petitioner duly and fully cooperated with the investigation and in fact, had also surrendered a double barrel gun which has been seized by the investigating agency and as such, since the petitioner has been fully cooperating with the investigation, it would not be appropriate to subject him to any custodial interrogation. Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that arrest at this stage, after having fully cooperated with the investigation, would lead to unnecessary humiliation and loss of face before the society and has urged that the present application may be allowed granting the relief claimed. In this regard, Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a series of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the various parameters for grant of anticipatory bail. In this regard, Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a series of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the various parameters for grant of anticipatory bail. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & anr.; (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it has been submitted that a proper balance ought to be maintained between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest by the police as arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also had warned the serious consequences of arrest and observed that it would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation and observed that before arrest, a police officer should have reasonable belief and materials that the accused had committed the offence and apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C. Reliance has been also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & ors.: (2009) 4 SCC 437 which had referred to the principles to be followed while granting anticipatory bail. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. & ors. reported in 1994 Cri. L.J. 1981 wherein it has been observed that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person and it would be prudent for the police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest as denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. It went on to observe that there must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer that such arrest is necessary and justified and except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave station without permission would do. Mr. Mani has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Agarwal & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3173 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & ors. v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : AIR 1980 SC 1632 . Further relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2011 Cri. L.J. 3905, Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised on the need to respect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and has observed that if the accused has joined investigation and is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. In the present case, it has been submitted that since the petitioner is fully cooperating with the investigation, his custodial interrogation is not needed. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., (2014) 4 SCC 453 has been relied to buttress this argument. It has been also submitted by Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner that as for the charge of extortion under section 384 IPC is concerned, the petitioner has completely denied any such involvement. It has been also submitted by Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner that as for the charge of extortion under section 384 IPC is concerned, the petitioner has completely denied any such involvement. As regards the charge under section 325 IPC, even assuming that the same is correct, since it is a bailable offence, the petitioner is not claiming any relief u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Coming to the charge of attempt to murder under section 307 IPC hoisted against the petitioner, it has been submitted that there is no material evidence to implicate the petitioner as the most important ingredient of this section is the intention to murder which is absent in the present case and as such, since there is no material to implicate the petitioner under section 307 IPC, he would be entitled to the relief claimed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. As regards section 25(1-C) of Arms Act, it has been submitted that since the offence is punishable for imprisonment which may extend to 7 years, the petitioner need not be arrested in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & anr.; (supra). In para No. 7.1 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is evident from a reading of Section 41 Cr.P.C. that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed offence punishable as aforesaid. A Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the police officer or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured. It has been further submitted that the petitioner does not deny possession of the double barrel gun which is also a licence one. It has been further submitted that the petitioner does not deny possession of the double barrel gun which is also a licence one. However, such weapon was never used in the incident. Accordingly, it has been submitted that no case has been made out so as to disentitle the petitioner of the relief claimed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned PP has vehemently opposed this application. Firstly, it has been contended that this application has been moved by the petitioner before this Court on 19.12.2014 after about two weeks of the rejection of his relief by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal on 3.12.2014 without any change in the circumstances of the case which has been already deprecated by the Courts. It has been held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Kushalduwari v. State of Assam, 2009 (2) GLT 926 that successive application for pre arrest bail within a short period without any change in fact situation is impermissible. Learned PP has also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that while successive bail application are permissible under changed circumstances, without change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under the criminal law. The learned PP also has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 667 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that order of anticipatory bail should be of a limited duration and ordinarily on the expiry of the duration, granting anticipatory bail should be left to the regular Court to deal with the matter. In the present case, the petitioner has been enjoying the interim relief since December, 2014 and this has hampered the investigation and the bail application ought to be referred to the regular Court for the purpose of grant of bail. In the present case, the petitioner has been enjoying the interim relief since December, 2014 and this has hampered the investigation and the bail application ought to be referred to the regular Court for the purpose of grant of bail. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the State relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran & ors., (2007) 4 SCC 434 that as the petitioner had already surrendered and had been granted bail in terms of this Court's direction, the petitioner should surrender before the Court concerned and move bail in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which could be dealt on merit. Learned PP also has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171 holding that power u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in character and has to be exercised only in exceptional cases where a person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It has been submitted by Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned PP that in the present case, the petitioner has not been cooperating with the investigation and there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he had extorted one Nokia handset, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and one wrist watch of the complainant which are yet to be recovered and the petitioner is not cooperating with I.O. of the case for effecting recovery of these articles and accordingly, it has been submitted that the investigating agency should be given a free hand to investigate the matter and no fetters should be placed on the I.O. by granting the relief to the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner however has submitted that the submission of the learned PP that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation is not correct and has already submitted an additional affidavit narrating how the petitioner had been co-operating with the investigation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner however has submitted that the submission of the learned PP that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation is not correct and has already submitted an additional affidavit narrating how the petitioner had been co-operating with the investigation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. As we proceed to examine the applicability of the decisions cited above by the respective parties in the present case, it may be necessary to refer briefly to certain salient features of the case as revealed from the records including the case diary. The FIR Case No. 147(11)2014 Kakching P.S. U/S 384/325/307/34 IPC & 25(1-C) A. Act was registered on the basis of certain complaint made by one Shougrakpam Japan Singh before the Officer-in-Charge, Kakching Police Station on 3.11.2014 pursuant to the complaint filed before the Ld. CJM, Thoubal. In the said complaint, it was alleged that on 2.11.2014 at about 4:30 pm the complainant along with his friend, namely, L. Dipak Singh went to the residence of one Puyam Iboshana Singh at Langathel Mayai Leikai to attend "Swasthi Puja" of the daughter of the said Iboshana Singh. At around 7:30 pm while he came out of the house of Iboshana Singh to attend a mobile phone call, the accused persons including the present petitioner caught hold of the complainant and took him to the house of one of the accused, Moirangthem Nilamani Singh and he was beaten up there by using deadly weapons like stick and iron rod. It had been also alleged that the petitioner took out of gun and struck the complainant by the butt of the gun threatening to kill him because of which the complainant sustained serious injuries. On getting hurt, he cried for help and on hearing his cry, the local people rushed there whereupon the accused persons also ran away. The complainant was thereafter taken to the district hospital, Thoubal by the local people and got treated. It has been also alleged that the petitioner had snatched Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), a wrist watch and one Nokia Handset from the complainant. 6. The complainant was thereafter taken to the district hospital, Thoubal by the local people and got treated. It has been also alleged that the petitioner had snatched Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), a wrist watch and one Nokia Handset from the complainant. 6. As per the bail objection report submitted by the I.O. all the 5(five) accused persons including the present petitioner, namely in the complaint, approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Thoubal after the registration of the FIR case, by filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 6.11.2014 granted interim relief. However, the learned Sessions Judge by a subsequently on 3.12.2014 rejected the application and cancelled the interim anticipatory bail granted already with the observation that the accused persons may apply for a regular bail from the concerned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge passed the aforesaid orders on the basis of the objection report so submitted and observing that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners. 7. Thereafter, the remaining accused persons, excluding the present petitioner, approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal seeking bail on 9.12.2014 by surrendering before this Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal, by order dated 9.12.2014 allowed the said 4 (four) accused persons to go on interim bail till 11.12.2014 with a direction to them to appear before the I.O. of the case on 10.12.2014 who was directed to submit the report on 11.12.2014 for consideration of the bail application. On 11.12.2014, the said 4 (four) accused persons were remanded to police custody till 15.12.2014 during which period their statements were recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. When they were produced before the learned CJM, Thoubal on 15.12.2014, they furnished a written undertaking before the learned CJM to the effect that the accused/petitioner, namely, Moirangthem Megachandra Singh shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 17.12.2014 without fail and failing which their bail application shall stand cancelled. Learned Sessions Judge by accepting the said undertaking released them on bail. However, as they failed to produce the petitioner, their bail applications were cancelled by the learned CJM, Thoubal on 18.12.2014. It had been stated in the bail objection report that while efforts were being made to arrest the petitioner, the petitioner obtained the interim relief from this Court vide order dated 19.12.2014. However, as they failed to produce the petitioner, their bail applications were cancelled by the learned CJM, Thoubal on 18.12.2014. It had been stated in the bail objection report that while efforts were being made to arrest the petitioner, the petitioner obtained the interim relief from this Court vide order dated 19.12.2014. On the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner presented himself before the I.O. who was examined in presence of his lawyer. In course of the examination, the petitioner produced a double barreled gun which was then seized by the Investigating Officer. The bail objection report states that however, as regards the articles which had been alleged to have been taken away from the complainant by the accused i.e., the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), one Nokia Handset and one wrist watch, the petitioner has refused to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, accordingly has prayed this Court for rejecting his application filed by the petitioner under Section 438Cr.P.C. 8. The petitioner, of course, in the petition has denied of the allegations and has claimed that the entire allegation is false and the FIR had been lodged as a counterblast to the complaint filed against the said complainant and others who had kidnapped and raped the daughter of the petitioner. 9. As mentioned above, it is the case of the petitioner that the earlier rejection of the application under section 438 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge without discussing and considering the materials and by passing a non speaking order has gravely prejudiced the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner had been fully cooperating with the investigation of the case during the pendency of this petition and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claim under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 10. Since the present the criminal process initiated against the petitioner is at the investigation stage and the principal object before this Court is to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, during the stage of investigation, it may not be appropriate to disclose the details of the materials revealed in investigation made so far so as not to prejudice the case of the petitioner as well as the investigating agency. However, in spite of the court's reluctance to delve into the various materials which has emerged in course of investigation made so far, this Court has to refer to certain important aspects of the case and investigation for deciding the case at hand. 11. As mentioned above, the complainant made allegation against the petitioner and 4 other co-accused that the complainant while visiting the house of his friend, was taken away to the house of another co-accused and assaulted. Though such assault has been denied there are certain materials on record to show injuries received by the complainant. The medical documents indicate that there were swelling on the face of both the eyes and bruises on the right forehead and the nose and the redness on the eyes. Thus, it is a fact that the complainant received certain injuries in his body as mentioned above. According to the complainant it was because of assault by the petitioner and other 4 co-accused, though the same has been denied by the petitioner. On perusal of the statements of accused as well as the other witnesses examined by the I.O., their statements tend to support the allegation of the complainant. Even the other co-accused have mentioned about the fight having taken place in the house of Moirangthem Nilamani Singh, another accused on 2nd November, 2014, in their re-examination after accused were granted interim relief by the learned CJM, Thoubal though there were certain inconsistencies in their statements. Therefore, considering the materials available in the case diary, the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner and co-accused had assaulted the complainant on 2.11.2014 cannot be ruled out. No other circumstances have emerged which would explain the injury received by the complainant. There is also the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had threatened with to kill the informant with the firearm. The petitioner himself also admits to possessing one licensed barreled gun though he had also denied to use the same on the said day. The Investigating Officer has stated in their objection report that the use of the fire arm can not be ruled out and further investigation is necessary. The Investigating Officer has also stated in the objection report that the petitioner is not cooperating as regards the snatching of the sum of Rs. The Investigating Officer has stated in their objection report that the use of the fire arm can not be ruled out and further investigation is necessary. The Investigating Officer has also stated in the objection report that the petitioner is not cooperating as regards the snatching of the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), one Nokia Handset and one wrist watch from the complainant by the petitioner and other co-accused persons which would require further interrogation of the petitioner for the recovery of the said articles alleged to have been snatched from the complainant. In short, the complaint against the petitioner of assaulting the complaint and threatening him can not be said to be entirely baseless. Further, the allegation regarding the allegation of snatching the article needs to be investigated further. Though the petitioner has claimed that he has fully corroborated with the investigation, the I.O. has stated in his written bail objection that the petitioner is not co-operating as regards the recovery of the snatched articles and his further interrogation will be required for recovery of these articles. 12. Having stated the relevant background facts briefly, we may proceed to examine the applicability of the various principles and decisions and observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. Coming to the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) decided in 2014, relied on by the petitioner it may be mentioned that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had elaborately dealt with the scope of power of the police to arrest the said discussion was made on the context of an application filed by the petitioner therein who was apprehending arrest under Section 498(A) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Supreme while dealing with the said case observed that the fact that Section 498(A) IPC is a cognisable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives and the simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. It was also observed that while the charge sheeting in cases under Section 498-A IPC is as high as 93.6%, the conviction rate is only 15% and out of 3,72,706 cases pending trial, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. It was also observed that while the charge sheeting in cases under Section 498-A IPC is as high as 93.6%, the conviction rate is only 15% and out of 3,72,706 cases pending trial, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. It was in that context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized upon the need to exercise restraint and to take precautions before resorting to arrest of the accused and advocated invoking of power under Section41(A) Cr.P.C. to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dealing with the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention under Section 167 Cr.P.C. and duty of the Magistrate to examine the materials carefully before authorizing detention of the accused. In the aforesaid case, the wife was allegedly driven out of matrimonial house due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. No allegations of physical torture were disclosed in the case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) may not be a relevant to deal with the present case where there are allegations of assault, threat to life, extortion, etc. Coming to the next case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra), decided in 2009 it may be also observed that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the charge sheet has been filed and cognisance has been taken, the case was pending for trial and the said case was relating to quashing of FIR. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that observations made in the said case will not be applicable in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of the fact that charge sheet had been filed and cognisance had been taken, refused to quash the FIR and directed the appellant therein to appear before the trial and to file an application for bail. Coming to the case of Joginder Kumar (supra) decided in 1994, it may be stated that the said case was filed under Sections 41 and 151 Cr.P.C. and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India in connection with the alleged detention by the police without producing the petitioner before the Magistrate as required under law. In that connection, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the right of the arrested person and the scope of Articles 21 and 22. In that connection, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the right of the arrested person and the scope of Articles 21 and 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the said case of Joginder Kumar (supra), may not be applicable in the present case. Coming to the next case of Savitri Agarwal (supra) decided in 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case arising out of Section 498(A), Section 304(b) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the said case, the learned Sessions Judge had granted relief under Section 438 of the CPC which was withdrawn by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench which had been assailed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the decision of the High Court and restored the relief granted by the learned Sessions Judge. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and referred to the Constitution Bench decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1980) SC 1632. While discussing the principles, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Savitri Agarwal (supra) reiterated some of the guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) observing that though the power conferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be described as of an extraordinary character, but this does not justify the conclusion that the power must be exercised in exceptional cases only because it is of an extraordinary character. Nonetheless, the discretion under the Section has to be exercised with due care and circumspection depending on circumstances justifying its exercise. Though the guideline laid down by the Constitution Bench that no blanket order of bail should be passed and the Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or the offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective, while granting relief under Section 438(1) of the Code, appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One such condition can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the recovery. Otherwise, such an order can become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be prejudiced when the order was passed. One can therefore observe that where discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is involved, arrest may be warranted. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) decided in 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately dealt with the scope of the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the said case, of course, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that it is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided as observed in para 98 thereof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred to the factors and parameters to be taken into consideration while dealing with the any Anticipatory Bail in para 92 thereof. However, it may be also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case also observed that no inflexible guidelines or strait-jacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail and no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail as observed in para 121 thereof. In view of that, this Court also examined minutely the evidences as disclosed during the investigation to deal with this petition. In view of that, this Court also examined minutely the evidences as disclosed during the investigation to deal with this petition. In the case of Hema Mishra (supra) decided in 2014 referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in passing where the appellant had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of an FIR and to defer arrest of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court of the view that the observations made in a different context may not be applicable in the present case. As regards the decisions relied on by the learned PP it may be mentioned that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh (supra) was that the order of Anticipatory Bail should be for a limited period and it is of somewhat extraordinary character and should be exercised only in exceptional case. However, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that this judgment (Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh (supra)) did not consider the Constitutional Bench decision of Sibbia's case in proper perspective and was considered without taking into notice the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case. This Court, therefore, would also respectfully follow the observation made by the Supreme Court in the later judgment of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) that such restriction placed on the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Salauddin's case (supra) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. As regards the case of DK Ganesh Babu (supra), the same was decided by relying on the decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh (supra), K.L. Verma v. State of West Benal, (1998) 9 SCC 348 , the correctness of which were doubted as mentioned in Satlingappa's case on the ground that when these cases were decided the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case perhaps was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. 14. What comes out from the consideration of the materials on record at this stage of investigation is that there is an allegation by the informant of being assaulted by the petitioner and the co-accused and also being threatened with firearm and further allegation that certain articles were snatched from the informant though the petitioner has denied of these allegations. 14. What comes out from the consideration of the materials on record at this stage of investigation is that there is an allegation by the informant of being assaulted by the petitioner and the co-accused and also being threatened with firearm and further allegation that certain articles were snatched from the informant though the petitioner has denied of these allegations. The materials gathered in course of investigation, however, suggest otherwise indicating the possibility of the incidents of having taken place. It is also to be noted that investigation is going on and not yet completed and therefore, it may not be appropriate to comment on the merit and progress of the case. The Court is primarily concerned at this stage, whether the accusation has been falsely made with the object of injuring and humiliating the petitioner by arresting and whether the petitioner had played any major role in the case. Of course, the Court has to evaluate the entire materials available on record very carefully keeping into consideration the dignity and right of an accused and societal need in preventing and dealing with the crimes. In the present case, what has been noted is that the accusation is primarily targeted against the petitioner who has been alleged to have masterminded the dragging of the complainant to the house of one of his friends where the complainant was beaten up allegedly by the petitioner along with others for having involved in the kidnapping the daughter of the petitioner. The fact that complainant suffered certain injuries indicating assault is on record. There is nothing to suggest that the injuries received by the complainant are self inflicted or were caused due to some unconnected incident. The allegation is that the petitioner along with other accused had caught hold of the complainant and beaten him severely and he was rescued by the intervention of the locality people. Though these allegations have to be established, in course of the trial, yet, there are materials indicating such happenings. Since the double barreled gun had been seized from the possession of the petitioner, the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner had threatened the complainant with his life can not be totally ruled out. Therefore, the allegations made by the complainant can not be said to a figment of imagination or wholly concocted. Since the double barreled gun had been seized from the possession of the petitioner, the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner had threatened the complainant with his life can not be totally ruled out. Therefore, the allegations made by the complainant can not be said to a figment of imagination or wholly concocted. The investigating authority also in their bail objection has stated that the petitioner is not cooperating as regards the recovery of the articles which are stated to have been snatched from the complainant though the petitioner claims that he is fully co-operating with the investigation. The plea of the investigating officer that the custody of the petitioner will be required to effect recovery of snatched articles can not be overlooked. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to hold that the allegations against petitioner is frivolous and without any basis. There are certain materials which clearly indicate to his involvement in the case and these materials do not suggest that allegations against the petitioner are entirely baseless or frivolous and had been made to harass him. The societal demand in dealing with crime also has to be taken into consideration. Undue fetters must not be placed on the investigating agency to deal with the individuals who take law unto their hands. 15. Further, there are certain aspects which have been also observed by this Court. After the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal rejected the application of the petitioner and other 4 co-accused filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on 3.12.2014, the other 4 co-accused, but not the petitioner preferred to approach the learned CJM for grant of regular bail by surrendering before the Court, which was duly considered by the learned CJM, Thoubal. The petitioner did not apply for bail for reasons best known to him. The records also reveal that the other co-accused gave a written undertaking before the learned CJM, Thoubal that they would produce the petitioner before 17.12.2014. The fact remains that the said petitioner could not be produced nor had appeared before the Court or the Investigating Officer but he filed his application before this Court on 19.12.2014 and obtained an interim order. The fact remains that the said petitioner could not be produced nor had appeared before the Court or the Investigating Officer but he filed his application before this Court on 19.12.2014 and obtained an interim order. Though the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer, after he obtained an interim order on 19.12.2014, the I.O. has submitted that as regards the issue of recovery of the snatched items the petitioner has not cooperated and has accordingly requested for giving a freehand in the investigation. 16. This Court had to go in certain detail about the materials on record in view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge had not considered any of these materials while rejecting the application of the petitioner. However, it is also made clear that these observations made relating to the evidences are only for the limited purpose of consideration of this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the Courts have to assess the material evidences at appropriate stages of investigation and trial independing on their own merit without being influenced by the observations made herein. This Court, after having considered the entire materials as placed before and keeping in mind the principles of law as discussed would hold that it can not be said that allegations against the petitioners are frivolous without any basis and as such the investigating authority must be given a freehand in investigating the matter. It is left to the Investigation Officer whether to arrest or not after keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case and accordingly, this Court declines to entertain the application to grant the relief sought for under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 17. This Court has also noted that there are apparently no change in the circumstances after the earlier application of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Ld. Sessions Judge on 3.12.2014 and till the filing of this application before this Court. This Court has also noted that there are apparently no change in the circumstances after the earlier application of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Ld. Sessions Judge on 3.12.2014 and till the filing of this application before this Court. The petitioner has not been able to bring to the notice of this Court any such new development or changes in circumstances after the bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Thoubal till he filed this petition, except for stating that the charges against the petitioner are false and had been hoisted against him merely to wreck vengeance against the petitioner only for the reason that the petitioner had earlier made a complaint against the informant and others for kidnapping and rape of the daughter of the petitioner. 18. For the reasons discussed above, the petition is dismissed. Earlier interim order stands vacated.