Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 115 (MAN)

Khangembam Loken Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-06-16

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This application has been filed by the petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR No.11(7) of 2019 registered under Sections 406/417/419/420/34 IPC on the file of Mao Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.7.2019, the complainant Ng. Karaiba of Lairouching Village for herself and on behalf of 62 complainants reported that a person claiming as Anamika of Nongmaiching Tampak has dishonestly and fraudulently cheated them by (a) falsely promising to provide employment under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and had collected a sum of Rs.3,01,50,000/- from 62 individuals; (b) falsely promising to award housing loan and orphanage home construction project, an amount of Rs.1,00,58,000/- was collected from the complainant; (c) falsely promising to give available work project amounting to Rs.20.00 crore under the Ministry of Textiles, she had collected an amount of 1.20 crore from Elias Howmai and Ng.Kamba Sword; (d) falsely promising to give contract work for construction of community hall under the Ministry of Textiles, she had collected a sum of Rs.68,00,000/- from T.Moses and P.Karang and (e) falsely promising to award contract work for setting up cold storage under the Ministry of Textiles, she had collected a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- from T.Benjamin initially and later total amount collected goes upto Rs.86,00,000/-. According to prosecution, during the entire period while she cheated the complainants, she claimed as the Additional Director, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. Based on the complaint, an FIR under Sections 406/417/419/420/34 IPC was registered by Mao Police Station and subsequently transferred to CID Crime Branch, Manipur under the orders of the Director General of Police vide order dated 16.8.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while the petitioners were away from their respective homes for their day today activities on 13.10.2019, some policemen of Mao Police Station came at their residence and enquired about them and having found not available in the homes, left one xerox copy of FIR and asked the family members to come to Mao Police Station in connection with the investigation of FIR No.11(7). 4. The learned counsel further submitted that on perusal of the FIR by the petitioner, they came to know that the same was registered against one Anamika alias Rebika Suantak based on the complaint given by Ng.Karaiba and that the petitioners are not at all related with the said FIR. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that on perusal of the FIR by the petitioner, they came to know that the same was registered against one Anamika alias Rebika Suantak based on the complaint given by Ng.Karaiba and that the petitioners are not at all related with the said FIR. Of course, the said Anamika alias Rebika knows each other with the petitioners while doing contract work. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners has reasonable apprehension to be arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR and in the event they are arrested, then it will be very difficult for them to do their petty business and also doing sub-contract works for their livelihood, apart from the sufferings faced by their family members. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that on 23.10.2019, this Court granted interim direction to the respondent police not to arrest the petitioners and the said order is still continuing. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent and they are in no way connected with the alleged crime. In view of the above, a regular anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, as they are apprehending arrest from the hands of the fourth respondent police. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, the complainant was examined and the main accused was arrested. During interrogation, the accused admitted that she had committed the offence charged against her and stated that she is ready to pay back the money she collected from the complainants. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that during investigation it was found that the accused Anamika was collaborating with one Tapashini Devi of Sagolband Takyel Kolom Leikai, who claimed herself as Branch Manager, Manipur Hills and Backward Development Co-operative Bank, Lamphel and also the petitioners. In this regard, house search was conducted at the residence of the accused persons and many incriminating documents were seized, including bank account details, letters with foreign banks, cheques, passbooks etc. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the examination of the seized documents reveal conspiracy and schemes of the accused persons which needed to be further examined minutely as large sums of money were collected from the complainant and other victims. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the examination of the seized documents reveal conspiracy and schemes of the accused persons which needed to be further examined minutely as large sums of money were collected from the complainant and other victims. According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is well in progress, however, the petitioners alone are not cooperating for examination as they have been absconded till date. In fact, the petitioners and other accused are highly required to be arrested in the present stage of investigation and the petitioners were accompanied with the main accused and also possessing themselves as Senior Accountant, SBI and that the second petitioner impersonated as Senior Accountant of SBI and the first petitioner impersonated as Manager, UBI at the time of receiving the amounts of Rs.3 lakh out of Rs.10 lakh from the complainant. Since the petitioners collected money from the innocent persons as advised by the main accused, they cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Moreover, if they are granted bail, the investigation will be delayed and hampered. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the petition. 9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The case of the petitioners is that an FIR No.11(7) was registered against one Anamika alias Rebika Suantak and the petitioners are not named in the said FIR. Only during the course of investigation, the police personnel of Mao Police Station came to the residence of the petitioners and directed the family members to come to the police station in connection with the said FIR and, thus, the petitioners has reasonable apprehension to be arrested in connection with the above referred FIR. 11. It appears that on 23.10.2019, when the petition was taken up for hearing, the following order has been passed by this Court: 'In the earlier occasion when the matter came up before this Court and directed both the counsel for the petitioner and PP to produce a copy of complaint since only copy of FIR is produced. Today, copy of the complaint has been produced and no name of the petitioner is mentioned in the complaint but there is one accused who is working as Addl. Director, Ministry of Textiles, Industry, Government of India has committed offence. Today, copy of the complaint has been produced and no name of the petitioner is mentioned in the complaint but there is one accused who is working as Addl. Director, Ministry of Textiles, Industry, Government of India has committed offence. The learned senior counsel informed this court that this petitioner is no way connected with the alleged complaint and he is known person of the main accused in this case who is working as Addl. Director, Ministry of Textiles, Industry, Govt. of India. Therefore, her name is falsely implicated and she is searching for arrest by the police. H. Samarjit, learned PP seeks time for filing objection. Post the matter on 28.11.2019. Till then, there shall be an interim direction directing the respondent police not to arrest the petitioner.' Admittedly, the said interim direction not to arrest the petitioners still continues and there is no quarrel over it. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that since huge sums of money involved and that the accused persons have collected money from the innocent persons by false promise as well as impersonation, the petitioners cannot be granted regular anticipatory bail and their arrest in this case is very much required. 13. Admittedly, the petitioners are not named accused. As admitted by the prosecution, the main accused is one Anamika alias Rebika Suantak and she was arrested and now in jail. The alleged impersonation of the first petitioner as Manager, UBI, Paona Bazar Branch, Imphal and the second petitioner as Senior Accountant of SBI, M.G.Avenue cannot be gone through at this stage and the same would be proved after conclusion of the trial. 14. The prosecution admitted that the investigation is well in progress. When the prosecution admitted that the investigation is well in progress, the requirement of the arrest of the petitioners at this stage is unwarranted. On the other hand, it is also the responsibility of the petitioners to co-operate with the investigating officer as and when called for investigation purpose and for examining them in connection with the crime. 15. In the case on hand, nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show that incriminating evidences were collected to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that some incriminating articles were seized, the same have not been produced before this Court. 16. 15. In the case on hand, nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show that incriminating evidences were collected to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that some incriminating articles were seized, the same have not been produced before this Court. 16. It is apposite to mention that no inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. This Court is of the view that no attempt should be made to provide regid 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. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. 17. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments in detail, observed as follows:- "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code,1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.' 18. The material on record to which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has invited attention of this Court does not indicate that the petitioners had actively connived with the main accused or other accused in cheating crores of rupees. This prima facie finding can be rendered on the basis of the material presently on record, only limited to decide the question as to whether the present petition for anticipatory bail can be granted. There is no doubt about the fact that offences alleged against the petitioners are of an extremely serious in nature, however, no proof has been now placed on record to show that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences causing serious financial loss to the innocent persons. 19. The other important consideration is the likelihood of the petitioners influencing witnesses during the course of investigation. It is to be analysed as to whether there is possibility of the petitioners interfering with the course of free and full investigation by influencing witnesses, while enjoying interim protection. 19. The other important consideration is the likelihood of the petitioners influencing witnesses during the course of investigation. It is to be analysed as to whether there is possibility of the petitioners interfering with the course of free and full investigation by influencing witnesses, while enjoying interim protection. In this regard, the conduct of the petitioners becomes important and there is any material to indicate that the petitioners are interfering with the investigation. As stated supra, on 23.10.2019, this Court passed an interim order not to arrest the petitioners and the said order is still continuing. No material now on record to indicate that the petitioners were making efforts to influence the investigation, even while enjoying the interim protection granted by this Court. 20. It is the duty of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in proper way to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. If Courts do not interfere, we are troubling the path on destruction. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra and Others, decided on 11.11.2020. 21. The prosecution could not point out any material to show that the petitioners had sought to influence the investigation during the period when they were enjoying the interim protection as per order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Court. Considering these facts and in the absence of any indication that the petitioners will flee the process of law, this Court is of the opinion that regular anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners by imposing appropriate conditions as they are not named accused. 22. In the result, the petition is allowed. Considering these facts and in the absence of any indication that the petitioners will flee the process of law, this Court is of the opinion that regular anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners by imposing appropriate conditions as they are not named accused. 22. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Senapati, Manipur in connection with FIR No.11(07)2019 registered under Sections 406/417/419/420/34 IPC on the file of Mao Police Station on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and further condition that: (a) The petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass book to ensure their identity. (b) The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of eight weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. (c) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/trial Court/concerned police is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law. (e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered against them under Section 229-A IPC. (f) It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the question of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and this Court has not delved into the merits of the offences levelled against the petitioners.