Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 13 (MAN)

T. Rajen Ayangba v. State of Manipur

2018-05-04

K.H.NOBIN SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : K.H. NOBIN SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for his release on bail in the event of his being arrested by the police in connection with a case under FIR No. 179(5)/2017 PRT-PS u/s. 307 IPC. 3.1. The case of the police as stated in its report, is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- (twenty two lakhs) from the complainant, Shri Th. Surjit Singh for his personal use with the promise that the same would be returned/repaid in a short period. But he failed to return the same and accordingly, on 20.05.2017 the complainant along with two of his friends, went to the house of the petitioner to ask for return of the said amount of money. When they reached the house of the petitioner, the petitioner's son suddenly made an attempt to assault them by holding a Rambo knife. On 24.05.2017 at about 4:00 p.m., the complainant reported the matter with the OC/PRT-PS and a case under FIR No. 179(5)/2017 PRT-PS u/s. 307 IPC was registered against the petitioner and his son. 3.2. The petitioner and his son moved an application for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Imphal East wherein an interim bail was granted on 29.5.2017 and thereafter, on 3.6.2017 after interim bail having been granted in favour of the petitioner and his son, the petitioner's son appeared before the police and his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. On 10.7.2017 when the matter came up before the learned District and Sessions Judge, the interim bail granted to petitioner's son was made absolute on the same condition mentioned in the earlier order whereas the interim bail granted in favour of the petitioner was vacated on the ground that he misused the interim protection granted to him, as he failed to appear before the police. 4. Thus, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner stating that the said FIR case has been registered against him on the false and concocted story made by the complainant and the charge made against him is an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, for which he has done nothing. 4. Thus, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner stating that the said FIR case has been registered against him on the false and concocted story made by the complainant and the charge made against him is an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, for which he has done nothing. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the police. After the interim bail being granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Imphal East, the petitioner along with his son appeared before the police on 03.06.2017 and got their statements recorded by the police and an affidavit to that effect was filed before it so that the same could be considered at the time of passing the final order. 5. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the said case under FIR No. 179(5) 2017 PRT-PS u/s. 307 IPC has been registered against the petitioner and his son. A copy of the said FIR is not placed on record but the allegation as stated in the police report is that the petitioner's son made an attempt to assault the complainant and his friends. The complainant and his friends are the eyewitnesses who have already been examined by the police and the petitioner's son being the accused as well. The petitioner's son who is the main accused, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned District and Sessions Judge, as has been stated hereinabove, vide its order dated 10.07.2017. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his statement has been recorded by the police on 02.02.2018 as seen from the police report. It is no longer the case of the police that the petitioner does not co-operate with it during its investigation and is likely to influence the witness. It is almost a year by now from the date of incident and since the statements of the complainant as well as that of the accused have been recorded by the police, it cannot be said that the custody of the petitioner is still required by the police for further investigation. 6. It is almost a year by now from the date of incident and since the statements of the complainant as well as that of the accused have been recorded by the police, it cannot be said that the custody of the petitioner is still required by the police for further investigation. 6. In view of the above, the instant application is allowed with the direction that the petitioner be released on bail by the police in the event his being arrested by the police subject to the same conditions as directed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Imphal East in respect of the petitioner's son.