JUDGMENT These applications have been filed by the petitioners accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with FIR No.59(4)2021 on the file of the Imphal Police Station registered under Sections 307, 506 and 34 IPC; Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act and under Section 13 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 2. Since both the bail applications arise out of the same FIR, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.4.2021 at 5.50 pm, the respondent police received an information that, at about 5.20 pm on 17.4.2021, one unknown person who came with another person on a white colour scooter kept a hand grenade along with one sheet of paper with threatening message written on it from the banned UNLF organization inside the premises of an under-construction house of one Leimapokpam Somakanta Singh of Yaiskul Ngakraba Leirak to cause loss of human lives and damage to valuable properties. However, the hand grenade failed to explode and the unknown culprit fled away towards the western side after the commission of the crime. The respondent police registered a suo-motu case against the unknown cadres of the outlawed organization UNLF. Thereafter, the respondent police took up the case for investigation and during investigation the investigating officer arrested the petitioners and detained them in jail. 4. The petitioners have filed bail applications stating that there is no modicum of evidence to substantiate the allegation made by the respondent police against the petitioners and the detention of the petitioners without any evidence is a violation of their right to liberty enshrined in the Constitution. The petitioners have also averred that the case of the prosecution in the above referred FIR is on mere apprehension that the petitioners were members of the outlawed UNLF and such circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain them for long and it would curtail the right to life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners have filed bail applications to enlarge them on bail. 5. The respondent police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on interrogation of the petitioner Yelam Ratan @ Khamba @ Taton Singh, he had stated that he was previously arrested four times in connection with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by various police stations. 5. The respondent police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on interrogation of the petitioner Yelam Ratan @ Khamba @ Taton Singh, he had stated that he was previously arrested four times in connection with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by various police stations. Similarly, the petitioner Maiban Sharat @ Chaoren during interrogation stated that he was previously arrested on three occasion by various police stations in connection with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is also stated by the respondent police that the petitioners were also convicted in some of the cases and thereafter released on bail and during the time of their previous arrest and the present arrest, they were holding the key post in UNLF. It is also stated that there are materials to connect the petitioners with the crime and if they were released on bail, the petitioners are likely to hamper the investigation by threatening witnesses and likely to abscond. Hence, prayed for dismissal of bail applications. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the alleged crime and in fact they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that on 21.4.2021, the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police from their respective residences. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the petitioners were members of UNLF organization, now they have returned in the mainstream and are living with their family and children. The alleged recovery of mobile phones and other articles stated by the respondent police are concocted one and no recovery has been made by the investigating officer at any point of time. 8. The learned counsel next submitted that the petitioners did not rejoin the said outlawed organization and they are in profession of agriculture to support their families and that the petitioners are now engaging in agricultural activities and have formed a club called Gorkhal Farmers’ Society and the club has about 50 members. Since the present accusation of the petitioners is unfounded, false, fabricated and concocted, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that further detention of the petitioners shall cause irreparable loss and injury, degradation of social status, mental agony to the petitioners and shall also curve their constitutional rights and liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 9. Since the present accusation of the petitioners is unfounded, false, fabricated and concocted, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that further detention of the petitioners shall cause irreparable loss and injury, degradation of social status, mental agony to the petitioners and shall also curve their constitutional rights and liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel then submitted that the further detention of the petitioners shall be caused dangerous to them during this miserable world-wide pandemic of the second surge of Covid-19 still facing in the State of Manipur too. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate the prosecution and shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and they shall not abscond from the Court and shall not leave the State while they are on bail. Arguing so, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail. In support, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 ; (ii) Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 and (iii) State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 . 10. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in keeping a hand grenade along with one sheet of paper with threatening message written on it from the banned UNLF organization inside the premises of the under-construction house of Leimapokpam Somokanta Singh to cause loss of human lives and damage of valuable properties. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner Yelam Ratan @ Khamba @ Taton is an active cadre of UNLF organization and got his basic military training at Chumnyu, Myanmar and he was working under the command of one S/S Finance Director NC Luwang @ Deben and the petitioner Yelam Ratan frequently goes to Moreh to meet his commander to get further instruction and upon his commanders instruction, he extorts money from businessmen, general public and Government employees etc. for party fund of the said organization. In fact, he had given Rs.45 lakh in the month of February, 2021 to one unknown person sent by NC Luwang of UNLF organization. for party fund of the said organization. In fact, he had given Rs.45 lakh in the month of February, 2021 to one unknown person sent by NC Luwang of UNLF organization. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner Yelam Ratan contacted the petitioner Maibam Sharat and threatened Consumer Affairs Food Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department officials to give allotment to rice to the contractors sponsored by UNLF, but the contracts were awarded to other contractors contrary to the petitioners demand. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor next submitted that the petitioner Maibam Sharat is also an active cadre of UNLF organization and he had received the basic military training and that he was said to hold the post of S/S Revenue Officer, Central Finance Team and presently, he was working under the command of S/S Acting Chairman LC Koireng of UNLF organization. 13. The learned Public Prosecution then submitted that the petitioners are founder members of Goakhal Farmers Club and the petitioner Maibam Sharat is the Chairman and the petitioner Yelam Ratan is the Coordinator of the said Club and that with the help of UNLF, the petitioners established the firm M/s. Ningthouja Enterprises as new FCS rice contractor for Imphal West and Churachandpur Districts and the said firm was nominated as transport contractor of FCS rice of Imphal West and Churachandpur Districts by the concerned CAF & PD Department. Since the petitioners are highly involved in contract allocation of FCS rice under the CAF & PD and there is also a high possibility of having a close nexus of them in the act of keeping a hand grenade with a sheet of paper with threat message on it from UNLF organization inside the premises of the under-construction house of one Leimapokpam, they cannot be enlarged on bail and prayed for dismissal of bail applications. 14. This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were members of the banned outfit UNLF and were still in contact with the UNLF members and have taken active part in extortion and collecting money from many persons including Government officials. The next allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they also involved in procuring contracts for contractors sponsored by UNLF. 16. The next allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they also involved in procuring contracts for contractors sponsored by UNLF. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.4.20201 at 5.20 pm, the petitioners kept a hand grenade along with one sheet of paper with threatening message written on it from the banned UNLF organization inside the premises of the under-construction house of Leimapokpam Somokanta Singh of Yaiskul Ngakraba Leirak to cause human lives and damage of valuable properties. 17. Admittedly, the alleged Leimapokpam Somokanta Singh has not lodged any complaint. According to the respondent police, on receipt of an information at 5.50 pm on 17.4.2021, the officer-in-charge of Imphal Police Station registered a suo-motu FIR against unknown cadres of outlawed organization UNLF under Section 307, 506, 34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Sections 13 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners were not individually named in the FIR. 18. According to the respondent police, a search operation was conducted at some suspected houses of Khurai Chingangbam Leikai and in that operation, the petitioner Yelam Ratan was detained from the house of one Yelam Bhishma Singh. On questioning, he disclosed that he is an active cadre of UNLF and he had also disclosed that he had contacted the petitioner Maibam Sharat from Kongpal Kongkham Leikal and threatened the officials of CAF & PD Department to give allotment of rice to the contractors sponsored by UNLF. According to the respondent police, the petitioners were arrested on 21.4.2021 at their respective residences along with wallets containing PAN card, driving licence, ATM cards, mobile phones etc. 19. It appears that earlier the petitioners have filed bail application before the Sessions Judge, Imphal West in Criminal Miscellaneous (B) Case No.37 of 2021. By an order dated 17.6.2021, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application holding that since the petitioners were in contact with the UNLF members and have taken active part in extortion of money from many persons and also involved in procuring contracts for contracts sponsored by UNLF, releasing them at this juncture would affect the progress of investigation. 20. As stated supra, the petitioners were not individually named in the FIR and the FIR has been registered against the unknown cadres of UNLF. 20. As stated supra, the petitioners were not individually named in the FIR and the FIR has been registered against the unknown cadres of UNLF. It is the say of the respondent that they are tracing the main culprits in the organized crime. Though the respondent police contended that the petitioners are holding the key posts in the outlawed organization UNLF, nothing has been placed on record to show their active participation in the said organization at the time of occurrence. Moreover, at this stage, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioners are active members of the UNLF and are holding key posts in the said organization on the date of occurrence and in fact the same can be decided only after trial. 21. It is admitted by the petitioners that they were once members of the UNLF organization and now they returned to the mainstream since about 17 or 18 years and now they are in the profession of agriculture to support their families. It is also the specific plea of the petitioners that they did not rejoin the said organization and the charges levelled against them are all false. Though no supporting materials have been produced by the petitioners to prove such plea that they returned to the mainstream and are now doing agricultural work for their livelihood, the said plea of the petitioners cannot be brushed aside simply for the reason that no materials are available to support of their plea. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the nexus between the petitioners who happened to have earlier joined the UNLF organization and later on left the said organization and that the prosecution story stating that some members of UNLF have committed the alleged crime of implanting hand grenade are quite far from each other and cannot culminate to the point that the petitioners are actually involved in the commission of the offence. This Court finds some force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In fact, in the affidavit-in-opposition itself, the respondent stated that tracing out the main culprits in the organized crime are highly required and to cause their arrest in the case. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are not the main accused in the crime. 23. In fact, in the affidavit-in-opposition itself, the respondent stated that tracing out the main culprits in the organized crime are highly required and to cause their arrest in the case. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are not the main accused in the crime. 23. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners cannot be penalized merely because they were members of UNLF and the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the petitioners for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioners is against the constitutional right and liberty. 24. In Raneef, supra, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manettee in Charles Dicken’s novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.” 25. In Vaman Narain Ghiya, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to them is adventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras)” 26. Prima facie, there is also nothing on record to show that the petitioners are involved in transportation of rice business concerning CAF & PD Department and also nothing on record to connect the petitioners with M/s. Ningthouja Enterprises. 27. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. Where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 28. As stated supra, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. This Court, in the earlier paragraphs of this order, only discussed that, prima facie, there is no clinching material to connect the petitioners into the alleged crime and as such the allegations leveled against the petitioners are to be proved only during trial and that apart the petitioners were not named accused in the FIR. 29. This Court, in the earlier paragraphs of this order, only discussed that, prima facie, there is no clinching material to connect the petitioners into the alleged crime and as such the allegations leveled against the petitioners are to be proved only during trial and that apart the petitioners were not named accused in the FIR. 29. It has been time and again held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as “reasonable, just, fair” so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 30. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 31. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be denied bail. 32. In the instant case, as admitted by the prosecution, the investigation is in good progress and the main culprits are yet to be traced out. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioners are in custody from 21.4.20201. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be denied bail. 32. In the instant case, as admitted by the prosecution, the investigation is in good progress and the main culprits are yet to be traced out. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioners are in custody from 21.4.20201. The primary purposes of ball in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of detaining him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance there on whenever his presence is required. 33. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” 34. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 35. In Balchand, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.” 36. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 37. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 38. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. 39. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 40. The learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West dismissed the bail application holding that even after the petitioners alleged return to mainstream life, they are still in contact with the UNLF members and have taken active part in extortion of money from many persons. 40. The learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West dismissed the bail application holding that even after the petitioners alleged return to mainstream life, they are still in contact with the UNLF members and have taken active part in extortion of money from many persons. Admittedly, such finding of the trial Court is without any material proof. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioners would involve oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have arrived at such finding. Except the seizure of mobile phones of the petitioners with sim cards, driving licence and PAN cards, nothing has been seized to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. 41. The petitioners have also given an undertaking that they will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice. Furthermore, as admitted by the prosecution, the best part of investigation was completed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on the ground of delay in investigation and/or trial and on the ground of incarceration of the petitioners from 21.4.2021, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 42. Accordingly, Bail Application Nos. 21 and 22 of 2021 are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the FIR No.59 (4) 2021 on the file of Imphal Police Station, subject to the petitioners each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West with the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of their respective residence and the complete address of such places shall be furnished to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West at the time of release. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police weekly once i.e. every Monday at10.30 a.m. (iii) If the petitioners have passport, they shall also surrender the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. (iv) The petitioners shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police weekly once i.e. every Monday at10.30 a.m. (iii) If the petitioners have passport, they shall also surrender the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. (iv) The petitioners shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses. (v) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vi) The petitioners are directed to co-operate the investigation and as and when required by the investigating officer, they shall appear before him. (vii) It is clarified that if the petitioners misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (viii) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail petitions. (ix) The respondent police authorities are directed to expedite the investigation and take necessary steps in accordance with law. 43. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.