Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 119 (MAN)

Chabungbam Sarat Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-07-06

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in event of arrest in connection with the FIR No.259(8)2019 on the file of the Porompat Police Station registered under Section 353, 354, 307 and 506 IPC. 2. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.8.2019 the petitioner used criminal force to deter the complainant from discharging her duty, tried to outrage her modesty and also attempted to murder her. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the complainant, the second respondent police registered an FIR Case No.259(8)2019 under Sections 253/354/307 and 506 IPC against the petitioner. Apprehending arrest in the hands of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail. 4. Opposing the petition, the second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on 26.8.2019 at about 4.10 p.m., while the complainant was at her office room at the office of Seed Analyst, she heard the petitioner quarrelling with staff Kangabam Keinahanbi Devi and started using hot words and shouting that he will kill all the staff by cutting into pieces. At that time, the complainant came out from her room to call one of her staff Thockom Memtombi Devi, where she saw the petitioner scolding Keinahanbi. The complainant asked the petitioner why are you shouting and scolding the staff to which he angrily replied to the complainant with harsh words and loud voice that after the complainant had joined as Seed Analyst, all the staff are not in good relation as they were before. Thereafter, the complainant went inside her room. After a while, the petitioner entered the complainant's room and started shouting her by using harsh and strong words that she broke all the good relation amongst the staff after she joined the office and, thereafter, he left the room. Later, when the complainant enquired her staff Keinahanbi, she reported that the petitioner by showing sword scolded her. Since the petitioner had an enmity with the complainant and he had threatened by holding sword which is a dangerous weapon, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Later, when the complainant enquired her staff Keinahanbi, she reported that the petitioner by showing sword scolded her. Since the petitioner had an enmity with the complainant and he had threatened by holding sword which is a dangerous weapon, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dissatisfied with the order dated 22.8.2019 passed by the complainant, the employees lodged a complaint to the petitioner, who is a President of the All Manipur Agriculture Department Employees Welfare Organisation to redress their grievances. Accordingly, the petitioner made an oral complaint to the petitioner, who was functioning as Seed Analyst without entering into her office room. On the contrary, the complainant stated that the petitioner entered into her room and used harsh words and threatened her by showing sword, which is totally false. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no cogent materials against the petitioner to array him as an accused and also there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner had committed the criminal acts as alleged in the FIR. In fact, on 29.8.2019, the staff members of the office of the Seed Analyst have given statement before the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East stating that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant. 7. The learned counsel urged that since the complainant had lodged a complaint and FIR has been registered based on it, the petitioner might be arrested by the second respondent police anytime and also there is apprehension that in the prevailing law and order situation of the State, there might be a danger to the life of the petitioner. Thus, a prayer is made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that not only the petitioner had entered into the room of the complainant and shouted her, but also on examination of other staff members, particularly Keinahanbi, who was working as UDC in the office of the Seed Analyst, states that while she along with Lakshmi, Memory and Memtombi were doing their official work, the petitioner entered the office and asked about the official work. During conversation, the petitioner showed a long sword and unwrapped the sword and started shouting that he will kill all staff by using filthy language and he also stated that he will destroy the office items. Immediately, the petitioner approached upto the door of the complainant and shouted the complainant by saying that after she joined in the office as Seed Analyst, the staff are not in good relation. After some time, the petitioner left the office by shouting and murmuring. Since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail and he is very much required for examination after arrest. 9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that he being the President of All Manipur Agriculture Department Employees Welfare Organisation, the staff members have approached him to redress their grievances. Accordingly, he went to the office room of the complainant and made a oral complaint, which has been exaggerated by saying that he scolded the complainant in using harsh words and that too by showing sword. In fact, there is no such incident took place and also there is no material against the petitioner which can show that prima facie the petitioner had committed the acts alleged against him. 11. The alleged use of criminal force to deter the complainant from discharging her duty, outraged the complainant's modesty, criminal intimidation and even the alleged attempt to murder the complainant cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same would involve oral and documentary evidence. 12. Earlier, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East by filing Cril. Misc. (AB) Case No.63 of 2019 and by the order dated 28.8.2019, the same was dismissed. On a perusal of the said order, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Judge simply dismissed the petition on the ground that the charges levelled against the accused are for commission of serious offences against a women. Though the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious offence, as stated supra, the veracity of the complaint cannot be gone into and at the same time, the plea of the petitioner raised in this petition cannot be ignored for the limited purpose of considering the anticipatory bail. 13. Though the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious offence, as stated supra, the veracity of the complaint cannot be gone into and at the same time, the plea of the petitioner raised in this petition cannot be ignored for the limited purpose of considering the anticipatory bail. 13. When a person apprehends arrest and approaches a Court for anticipatory bail, his apprehension, has to be based on concrete facts relatable a specific offence or particular of offences and not vague or general allegations. Applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his version of the facts. In the instant case, the petitioner has narrated the facts relating to the offence and also apprehension in his petition. 14. The provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It relates to personal liberty of a particular person and such a provision calls for liberal interpretation of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. Section 438 of Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates in the beginning statement itself that when a person has a reasonable apprehension to believe that they can be arrested on an accusation for commitment of a non-bailable offence, they can move the High Court or the Court of Sessions for grant of an anticipatory bail. The power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised by the Court in very exceptional cases. The Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause and a reasonable ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 Cr.P.C. protects the right to life and personal liberty of such persons by providing them with a remedy against frivolous detention. In a country where rifts and rivalries are common, its citizens should have a remedy which prevents disgracing their right to life and personal liberty. 16. In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in respect of application for anticipatory bail. In paragraph 25.10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '25.10. 16. In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in respect of application for anticipatory bail. In paragraph 25.10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '25.10. We all also reproduce para 112 of the judgment in Siddaram Satingappa case, wherein the Court delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (b) 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; (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (g) 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 the 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; (h) 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 free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (j) 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.' 17. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), frivolity in prosecution should always be considered 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 anticipatory bail. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. It should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case in consonance with the legislative intention. 18. The law is well settled that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible, but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 19. 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 Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, decided on 11.11.2020. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the absence of any indication that the petitioner will flee the process of law, this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner by imposing appropriate conditions. 21. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Accordingly, in the event the petitioner is arrested in FIR No.259(8)2019 registered under Section 353, 354, 307 and 506 IPC on the file of Porompat Police Station, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount. (b) The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond. (c) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. (b) The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond. (c) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. (d) Since the petitioner is a Government servant, he shall appear before the concerned Police Station on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. (e) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. (f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent police is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. (g) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the question of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.