JUDGMENT : These Anticipatory Bail Applications have been filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying inter-alia for the issuance of anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused in connection to FIR No. 10(06)2019 TPL-PS u/s 295-A/297/435/34 IPC and to make the anticipatory bail absolute. 2. On 15.6.2019, some miscreants entered into the cemetery of Challong village and dug over the tomb of Shri (L) D. Thamnok of Challong village which was buried on 20.05.2019 at the Challong Cemetery over Lungrul Hill saddle point and taken out his tomb cover and set fire over it, which brings the dead body’s box ablaze into ashes. That on receiving a complaint from one Smt. S.K. Shomlun, who is the wife of Shri (L) D. Thamnok, the Tengnoupal Police Station registered a case being FIR No.10(6)2019 TPL-PS u/s 295-A/297/435/34 IPC against eight incumbents including the humble petitioners/Accused. 3. The body of the deceased Shri (L) D. Thamnol Lamkang was buried not at the cemetery of his village but rather was buried at some other place which is 3-4 Kms away at Vomku Village. Further, the dead body was buried on 20.05.2019 however, the complainant noticed the occurrence of the incident only on 15.06.2019 while she was paying a visit to the tomb of her husband. The petitioners have no role to pay in the occurrence of the incident and had good reputation and a clean image in the society. The complainant ought to have verified by the book as to who the real culprits are before naming the petitioners. 4. That the state of affairs at Vomku village is highly fragile and that the occurrence of the incident has created a state of emergency among the people of Vomku village as many innocent people have been dragged into the incident for no fault on their part. The petitioners are living in a deep traumatic condition and are helpless as all their rights and liberty has been curtailed on the ground of mere suspicion, which now affects them and family members directly. 5. That another incumbent, Shri RD Zeepness, who is also a co-accused in the present FIR No.10(6)2019 TPL-PS u/s 295-A/297/435/34 IPC have earlier filed a Cril. 5. That another incumbent, Shri RD Zeepness, who is also a co-accused in the present FIR No.10(6)2019 TPL-PS u/s 295-A/297/435/34 IPC have earlier filed a Cril. Misc (AB ) No. 78 of 2019 before the Court of Session Judge, Imphal West praying for granting anticipatory bail whereby the Learned Session Judge on 06.07.2019 have granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the Cril.Misc.(AB) No.78 of 2019. 6. Therefore these Anticipatory applications were filed by these petitioners. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER: 7. The background of the case in brief is that on 19.06.2019 Smt. SK. Shomlun, 63 years, W/o (L) D. Thamnoklamkang of Challong Village lodged a written complaint with the OC/TPL-PS alleging that her husband passed away on 18.05.2019 and he was formally buried on 20th May, 2019 at Challong village cemetery which is located at Lungrul hill saddle point. She further alleged that on 15th June, 2019 the accused persons namely Shri (1) R.D. Chawan, 36 S/o (L) R.D. Thumson, Chief of Vomku Village, (2) Sr. Minthang, 26 S/o SR. Mote/Ngamhlung of Vomku village (3) Zipnesh (Zeepness) (42) S/o (L) Thumson of Vomku Village (4) Rd.Thumlun, 25, S/o (L)Rd.Thumson of Vomku Village, (5) Rd. Gameson, 30 years, S/o (L) Thumson of Vomku Village (6) Rd. Daniel, 28 S/o (L) Rd. Thumson of Vomku Village (7) Kh.Thumnem, 42 S/o (L) Kh.Khumthu of Vomku Village (8) Ts. Larhring, 37 S/o (L) Ts. Thimvol of Vomku Village stealthily intruded in to the graveyard and dug out the dead body of her husband from the grave. Thereafter the accused set on fire the tomb/grave apparently after removal of the dead body, which remains untraceable till date. Hence, a case under FIR No.10(06) 2019 TPL-PS U/s 295-A/297/435/34 IPC was registered and investigation into the matter has been going on accordingly. 8. During the course of investigation, among other things, the complainant was examined carefully and her statement has fully corroborated with the occurrence of the case. The IO visited and inspected the spot with the drawing of a rough sketch map of the PO with proper index. Inspection of the spot has clearly ascertained the fact that the grave/tomb of (L) D. Thamnok Lamkang was destroyed and set on fire after removal of the dead body. The dead body along with the coffin could not be traced out at the time of inspection of the spot. 9. Inspection of the spot has clearly ascertained the fact that the grave/tomb of (L) D. Thamnok Lamkang was destroyed and set on fire after removal of the dead body. The dead body along with the coffin could not be traced out at the time of inspection of the spot. 9. The named accused persons are now absconding to evade being arrested by police. Two of the named accused persons namely RD Zipnesh (Zeepness) and RD Daniel are found to be serving as teachers under Autonomous District Council, Chandel. Upon bringing the matter to the knowledge of the CEO/ADC, Chandel, both of them were directed by the CEO/ADC, Chandel vide letter No. ADC/CDL.MIS/2018 dated 04.07.2019 to appear before the IO of the case. However inspite of this direction both of them failed to appear before the IO of the case till date. 10. RD Zipnesh (Zeepness) and RD Daniel failed to appear before the IO of this case without giving any satisfactory and valid reasons in spite of the direction to do so from the competent authority, they were placed under suspension from service by the CEO/ADC, Chandel vide Letter No ADC.CDL/MISC/2018 dated 16.07.2019. 11. Hence a prayer was submitted before the court of the Learned CJM-CDL praying for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the named eight accused persons including Kh.Thumnem. The Learned CJM-CDL issued the warrants of arrest against the eight named accused persons vide Cril.Misc No.44 of 2019 dated 05.07.2019 which are pending execution. 12. One of the accused persons namely, RD. Zipnesh (Zeepness) was granted interim bail by the Learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West vide Cril. Misc (AB) No.78 of 2019 dated 06.07.2019 with the condition, inter alia that he shall make himself available before the investigating authority as and when allied for. He is still absconding in spite of availing himself on interim bail. As he was not found at his house, a copy of summons u/s 160 Cr.P.C was served through a villager of Vomku village for appearing himself before the IO of the case. Nevertheless he has not appeared before the IO of the case till date. 13. The interim bail of RD. Zipnesh (Zeepness) was extended till 19.07.2019 by the Learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West with the direction to appear before the court in person on 19.07.2019. However, the accused person namely RD. Nevertheless he has not appeared before the IO of the case till date. 13. The interim bail of RD. Zipnesh (Zeepness) was extended till 19.07.2019 by the Learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West with the direction to appear before the court in person on 19.07.2019. However, the accused person namely RD. Zipnesh (Zeepness) failed to appear before the court in spite of the Learned Court’s direction without any valid reason. One of the main accused namely Kanhring Tongshin (38) yrs S/o Ts. Purnigam, a resident of FWD office campus, Chandel was arrested in connection with this case on 15.07.2019 at 12.30 am. On interrogation the arrested accused admitted that he was involved in this case. Hence, he was remanded to police custody by the Learned CJM, Chandel for a period of three days w.e.f. 15.7.2019 till 17.7.2019 during which period he was subjected to custodial interrogation. 14. That he was hired by Rd. Zipnesh (Zeepness) to destroy the tomb of (L) D. Thumnoklamkang on payment of a sum of Rs.2000/- only. On 31.5.2019 in the afternoon he was picked up from DC Lamkhai, Chandel by Rd. Zipnesh in his white car and both of them left Chandel for Vomku Village. As planned, Kanhring Tongshin and around 11 members, including Rd. Gameson 38 yrs s/o (L) Thumson of Vomku Village, vandalized the grave/tomb of (L) D Thunonklamkang using pickaxe, crowbar, hammer etc. After destruction of the grave/tomb of (L)D Thumnok Lamkang, the coffin along with the dead body was removed and thereafter the damaged grave/tomb was set on fire. The removed coffin along with the dead body was taken away from the graveyard using coconut husk ropes and two long wooden poles towards Challong Village where they threw away into a deep gorge in a landslide area in a very inhuman manner. The destruction of the aforesaid grave took place in between 10.00 pm and 11.00 pm on 31.05.2019. 15. Consequent upon the disclosure, Kanhring Tongsin was taken to the spot where the coffin along with the dead body was discarded. At his instance and pointing, the coffin and a few human remains including garments were recovered from the ravine. The recovery of the aforementioned items was made u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in presence of witnesses including SDM, Chandel. The recovered items were shown to the pastor of Challong Baptist Church for proper identification. At his instance and pointing, the coffin and a few human remains including garments were recovered from the ravine. The recovery of the aforementioned items was made u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in presence of witnesses including SDM, Chandel. The recovered items were shown to the pastor of Challong Baptist Church for proper identification. The pastor claimed that the coffin and garments recovered tallied with the ones used during the burial of Late D. Thamnok Lamkang. The recovered coffin and a few human remains are now deposited at JNIMS Morgue, Porompat Imphal East for DNA analysis. 16. All the named 8 accused persons have been absconding to evade arrest, a W/T message was sent to all the OCs, PSs in Manipur for arresting them if found in their respective jurisdictions. However none of them is arrested till date. It has been ascertained that Rd. Chawan, 50 yrs, Chief of Vomku Village is one of the main accused. He is a named accused in the FIR. He has been deliberately not giving cooperation to the IO of this case. He has failed to appear before the IO of the case till date. Hence, the anticipatory bail in respect of the accused, Rd. Chawan is strongly objected to as granting anticipatory bail to him at this stage of investigation would greatly hamper the investigation of this case. REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT : 17. The Petitioners were never involved in any of the acts as have been mentioned in the complaint dated 19.6.2019 filed by Smt. S.K. Shomlun. Further, the overt act of the Police Personnel of Tengnoupal Police Station has created a fear psychosis among the villages of Vomku village whereby one Master Sr. Beni, aged about 11 years was admitted to the District Hospital, Chandel on 08.07.2019 owing to the threat and assault being conducted by the Police personnel of Tengnoupal Police Station towards the villagers of Vomku Village, Chandel District in the pretext of search operation. Moreover, search Operation has been conducted on odd hours such as in the early morning or in late hours of the night thereby creating a state of fear psychosis upon the villagers of Vomku Village. 18. The complaint was made to the Child Welfare Committee, Chandel District in connection with the deteriorating mental condition of Master Sr.Beni whereby the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Chandel District directed the Child Protection. 19. 18. The complaint was made to the Child Welfare Committee, Chandel District in connection with the deteriorating mental condition of Master Sr.Beni whereby the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Chandel District directed the Child Protection. 19. Therefore the allegations stated by the Respondent Police in their objections are all denied as false. 20. I have given my careful consideration to the respective submission made by the learned counsel for both parties. 21. No doubt personal liberty is precious value of our Constitution of India. Deprivation of personal freedom must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society specified in the Constitution. Even the accused persons are entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his case and to establish his innocence. A person, who is on bail, has a better chance to prepare and present his case than the person, who remanded in custody. An accused person, who enjoys freedom, is in a much better position to look after his case and properly defend himself than if he was in custody. Accordingly, it is stated that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception as stated in judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Anil Mahajan vs. Commissioner of Customs and another, 84 (2000) DLT 854, Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 and Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1978 SC 729. 22. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in H.B. Chatruvedi vs. C.B.I., 2011 (6) RCR of 12 (Criminal) 2402, has summarised the legal position under the similar circumstances as follows :- “14. The legal position emerging from the above discussion can be summarised as follows : (a) Personal liberty is too precious a value of our Constitutional System recognised under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. Deprivation of personal freedom must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society specified in the Constitution. (b) As a presumably innocent person the accused person is entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case and to establish his innocence. A man on bail has a better chance to prepare and present his case than one remanded in custody. (b) As a presumably innocent person the accused person is entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case and to establish his innocence. A man on bail has a better chance to prepare and present his case than one remanded in custody. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and properly defend himself than if he were in custody. Hence grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. (c) The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. (d) Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Even assuming that the accused is prima facie guilty of a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of punishing the accused person before he is convicted. (e) Judges have to consider applications for bail keeping passions and prejudices out of their decisions. (f) In which case bail should be granted and in which case it should be refused is a matter of discretion subject only to the restrictions contained in Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. But the said discretion should be exercised judiciously. (g) The powers of the Court of Session or the High Court to grant bail under Section 439(1) of Criminal Procedure Code are very wide and unrestricted. The restrictions mentioned in Section 437(1) do not apply to the special powers of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant bail under Section 439(1). Unlike under Section 437(1), there is no ban imposed under Section 439(1) against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. However while considering an application for bail under Section 439(1), the High Court or the Court of Sessions will have to exercise its judicial discretion also bearing in mind, among other things, the rationale behind the ban imposed under Section 437(1) against granting bail to persons accused of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. However while considering an application for bail under Section 439(1), the High Court or the Court of Sessions will have to exercise its judicial discretion also bearing in mind, among other things, the rationale behind the ban imposed under Section 437(1) against granting bail to persons accused of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (h) There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the Courts. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. The answer to the question whether to grant bail or not depends upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. (i) While exercising the discretion to grant or refuse bail the Court will have to take into account various considerations like the nature and seriousness of the offence; the circumstances in which the offence was committed; the character of the evidence; the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced and evidence being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State; the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witness; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence; the history of the case as well as the stage of investigation etc. In view of so many variable factors the considerations which should weigh with the Court cannot be exhaustively set out. However, the two paramount considerations are: (i) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and (ii) the likelihood of the accused tampering with prosecution evidence. These two considerations in fact relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a Court of justice and hence it is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors. These two considerations in fact relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a Court of justice and hence it is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors. (j) While exercising the power under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code in cases involving non-bailable offences except cases relating to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, judicial discretion would always be exercised by the Court in favor of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of Section 437 with regard to imposition of conditions, if necessary. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which might defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (k) If investigation has not been completed and if the release of the accused on bail is likely to hamper the investigation, bail can be refused in order to ensure a proper and fair investigation. (l) If there are sufficient reasons to have a reasonable apprehension that the accused will flee from justice or will tamper with prosecution evidence he can be refused bail in order to ensure a fair trial of the case. (m) The Court may refuse bail if there are sufficient reasons to apprehend that the accused will repeat a serious offence if he is released on bail. (n) For the purpose of granting or refusing bail there is no classification of the offences except the ban under Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against grant of bail in the case of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence there is no statutory support or justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category. When the Court has been granted discretion in the matter of granting bail and when there is no statute prescribing a special treatment in the case of a particular offence the Court cannot classify the cases and say that in particular classes bail may be granted but not in others. Not only in the case of economic offences but also in the case of other offences the Court will have to consider the larger interest of the public or the State. Not only in the case of economic offences but also in the case of other offences the Court will have to consider the larger interest of the public or the State. Hence only the considerations which should normally weigh with the Court in the case of other non-bailable offences should apply in the case of economic offences also. It cannot be said that bail should invariably be refused in cases involving serious economic offences.” 23. In Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab the Hon’ble Supreme Court was determining the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the question as to how best the two conflicting interests - - one of personal liberty and the other of investigational powers - - could be balanced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed : “Generalisation on matters which rest on discretion and the attempt to discover formulae of universal application when facts are bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion. The Supreme Court did not find any risk involved in the legislative entrustment of wide discretion to the Court of Sessions and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail because their orders are not final but are open to appellate and revisional scrutiny and above all, also because discretion has always to be exercised by Courts judicially with care and circumspection depending on circumstances justifying its exercise and not according to whim, caprice and fancy. The Supreme Court also held that if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Sessions, it must apply its own mind and decide whether a case has been made out for granting such relief and cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate under Section 437 as and when an occasion arises.” 24. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitles a person to apply to the High Court or Court of Session for pre-arrest bail, where he has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. 25. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ( 1980 (2) SCC 565 ), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 438 of Crl.P.C and it was held thus : “26. ......................... 25. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ( 1980 (2) SCC 565 ), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 438 of Crl.P.C and it was held thus : “26. ......................... Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An overgenerous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions...............” 26. The power conferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of an extraordinary character. It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised with due care and circumspection. It is also well settled that the object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. However, Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked to exempt the accused from surrendering to the court alter the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed against him. No unnecessary and unreasonable restriction can be placed on the right of the party to make an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the court will grant relief by exercising its discretion only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. The remedy under Section 438 is not intended to insulate the accused from all or any of the consequences of the investigation. It is intended to protect the liberty of persons who are falsely implicated in cases. The court may also grant an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases where even if the case put forward by the prosecution is taken as true, the gravity of the same would not be sufficient to arrest and detain the accused. The court may also grant an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases where even if the case put forward by the prosecution is taken as true, the gravity of the same would not be sufficient to arrest and detain the accused. No straitjacket formulae can be evolved as to the case in which the court may grant or may not grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The discretion to be exercised by the court under Section 438 of Crl.P.C depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of the offence, the nature of evidence available in the case, the severity of the punishment etc. are relevant factors while dealing with an application under Section 438 Crl.P.C. When the High Court or the Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub section (1) of Section 438 Crl.P.C., it may include such conditions, including those enumerated under sub section (2) of Section 438 Crl.P.C. in the light of the facts of the particular case. 27. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR are disputed. Further it is presumed on the arguments made by both parties that the state of affairs at Vomku village is highly fragile and that the occurrence of the incident has created a state of emergency among the people of Vomku Village as many innocent people have been dragged into the incident for no fault on their part. Further the co-accused also released on bail. 28. Admittedly, the investigation has been completed except the interrogation. No doubt while granting Anticipatory bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused and facts and circumstances of the case. It is also one of the factors while considering the bail that is a reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. The larger interest of the public/State and some other similar considerations are also there. It is also one of the factors while considering the bail that is a reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. The larger interest of the public/State and some other similar considerations are also there. However, for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence”, which means the Court while dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charges. At this stage, it is not expected to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore this Court is inclined to allow the applications filed by the petitioners/Accused. 29. In the result, (a) All the Anticipatory Bail Petitions are allowed. (b) All the petitioners are granted Anticipatory Bail with a direction to each petitioners that they should execute two sureties like a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandel. (c) All the petitioners are directed to file an undertaking individual affidavit by mentioning that the petitioners shall not indulge in the same offence in future and also undertake that the petitioners will act the peacefulness in the village and also not to interfere with the investigation. On filing such affidavit the Leaned Magistrate permitted the petitioners to execute the sureties. (d) The petitioners are directed to appear before the Respondent Police daily at 10.00 am. until further orders. (e) The Petitioners should not tamper or hamper the witness or evidences. (f) If any violation of the above condition by the petitioners the Prosecution is at liberty to move this court for cancellation of bail.