JUDGMENT 1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are father and son, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in event of their arrest in connection with FIR No.212(12)2020 registered under Section 326/34 IPC on the file of the Imphal Police Station. 2. Both the petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2020 at 7.30 a.m., while Kangabam Shantikumar Singh was standing in front of his gate, the petitioners and one unknown person wearing helmet along with a dog came with iron rod and other deadly weapon and attacked him by pelting stone and whipping by the rod etc. As a result, Kangabam Shantikumar Singh sustained injury on his left forearm and other parts of the body, including legs while trying to save himself. The wife of the injured rushed to Imphal Police Station and lodged a complaint and upon receipt of the complaint, the Officer-in-Charge of Imphal Police Station registered the case in FIR No.212(12)2020 under Sections 326/34 IPC against the petitioners and one unknown person. 5. The case of the petitioners is that Kangabam Shantikumar Singh used to tease the petitioners' dog by threatening with sticks and stones. Due to frequently teasing, the petitioners' dog barked whenever it sees him. On 20.12.2020 at about 6.30 a.m., the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei was taking out his dog for a morning walk and at that time Kangabam Shantikumar Singh was sweeping in front of his residence with a broom. When the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei and his dog came closer, Kangabam Shantikumar Singh started teasing the dog with broom stick and on that the petitioner warned him not to do, but he did not listen and his dog started barking loudly at him. His dog became more aggressive and began to charge towards him and to control the situation, the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei pull the leash of the dog and unfortunately, when his dog jumped towards Kangabam Shantikumar Singh, he tried to move away and while doing so he lost his balance and fell on the ground and got injured. 6. His dog became more aggressive and began to charge towards him and to control the situation, the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei pull the leash of the dog and unfortunately, when his dog jumped towards Kangabam Shantikumar Singh, he tried to move away and while doing so he lost his balance and fell on the ground and got injured. 6. According to the petitioners, on 21.12.2020, when the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei was out of his residence and the petitioner in A.B.No.13 of 2021 was at his workplace at 2nd India Reserve Battalion, the mother of the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei informed that the police personnel of Imphal Police Station came to the residence and informed that a case was registered against both the petitioners on the complaint made by Kangabam Shantikumar Singh. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have filed these petitions for anticipatory bail. 7. Resisting the petitions, the respondent State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that prima facie case is made against the petitioners and the nature of injuries caused on the victim are grievous as per the report of the Medical Officer. Moreover, another unidentified accused is still at large. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is highly required in order to ascertain the identity of another co-accused. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei is a shopkeeper by profession, running a small business of clothing at Singjamei Super Market, Imphal and he is maintaining his family consisting of two minor children. The only fault of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the pet dog which Kangabam Shantikumar Singh used to tease frequently. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner Chongtham Jayantakumar Meetei is serving as an electrician in the 2nd Indian Battalion, Manipur and also he is having some health issues and is still taking medication and he was not even present at the place of occurrence of the said incidence. 10. The learned counsel submitted that earlier the petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Imphal West by filing Cril. Misc. (AB) Case Nos.152 and 153 of 2020 and by the order dated 22.12.2020, the learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, by the order dated 4.3.2021, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the petitions. 10. The learned counsel submitted that earlier the petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Imphal West by filing Cril. Misc. (AB) Case Nos.152 and 153 of 2020 and by the order dated 22.12.2020, the learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, by the order dated 4.3.2021, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the petitions. According to the petitioners, if they are arrested based on any concocted and fabricated allegation then it is very eminent that the petitioners' reputation would be tarnished and would cause grave disrepute and irreparable damage to them. 11. The learned counsel urged that the petitioners are innocent of the charges levelled against them and further the personal liberty being one of the most cherish fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, they shall not be subjected to undue and unnecessary harassment on frivolous charges. Thus, a prayer is made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the complainant, victim and recorded their statements and further tried to examine witnesses available at the spot, but no one is ready to be the witness of the scene of the crime. When the investigating officer visited the house of the accused persons, they were not found at the residence. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that on 22.12.2020, the petitioners personally appeared at the police station along with copies of the interim anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge. However, their statements could not be recorded by the investigating officer on the said date, as he was engaged in other urgent law and order duty. The petitioners were directed to appear personally on 26.12.2020 for recording their statements. On 26.12.2020 also the statements of the petitioners could not be recorded, as the investigating officer was again deputed for law and order duty of the police station. When the petitioners were directed to appear before the investigating officer, thereafter, they failed to appear. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that when the investigating officer contacted through mobile numbers of the petitioners for appearance before him and despite communications, they failed to appear and that their petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 4.3.2021. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that when the investigating officer contacted through mobile numbers of the petitioners for appearance before him and despite communications, they failed to appear and that their petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 4.3.2021. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the petitions. 15. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 16. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not committed any offence and they are innocents. Since the respondent police visited the house of the petitioners and enquired them in connection with the FIR No.212(12)2020 on the file of Imphal Police Station and apprehending their arrest in the said case, they have earlier filed Cril. Misce. (AB) Case Nos.152 and 153 of 2020 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West. By the order dated 22.12.2020, the learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however, by the order dated 4.3.2021, the said petitions were dismissed. According to the petitioners, there is no material against them which can show prima facie the petitioners have committed the offence alleged against them. 17. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that despite communications, the petitioners have failed to appear before the investigating officer and therefore the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required, in the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent stated that on 22.12.2020 the petitioners were personally appeared and when they were directed to appear before the investigating officer on two occasions, they appeared. Since the investigating officer engaged in law and order duties of the police station, he could not examine and recorded the statements of the petitioners. The aforesaid averment of the respondent police would show that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigating officer. 18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the alleged occurrence, the petitioner Chongtham Japson Meetei visited the complainant's house and enquired his health several times and the petitioners were under the good impression that the matter is amicably settled as they do not have any further dispute at their localities. 19. Admittedly, the allegation levelled against the petitioners cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same would involve oral and documentary evidence. 19. Admittedly, the allegation levelled against the petitioners cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same would involve oral and documentary evidence. On a perusal of the FIR, this Court finds that FIR No.212(12)2020 was registered against the petitioners and one unknown person. Further, the plea of the petitioners that since the injured used to tease the dog and on the fateful day, when the injured started teasing the dog with broom stick, the dog became more aggressive and began to charge towards him and due to the impact, Kangabam Shantikumar Singh sustained injuries are all matters of evidence. 20. It is to be noted that earlier the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West for anticipatory bail and though the learned Sessions Judge, by the order dated 22.12.2020, granted interim anticipatory bail with certain conditions, finally on 4.3.2021, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions. After the dismissal of the petitions by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police and the said fact was also stated by the petitioners in their petitions. 21. 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 petitioners have narrated the facts relating to the offence and also apprehension in the petitions. 22. 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. 23. 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 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. 24. 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 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.' 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. It is the duty of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in proper way to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 27. 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. 28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any indication that the petitioners will flee the process of law and the undertaking given by the petitioners that there is no likelihood of their absconding or misusing their liberty if enlarged on bail and they are ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed, this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners by imposing appropriate conditions. 29. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail applications are allowed. Accordingly, in the event the petitioners are arrested in FIR No.212(12)2020 registered under Sections 326/34 IPC on the file of the Imphal Police Station, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions: (a) The petitioners shall furnish personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount. (b) The petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bonds. (c) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. (d) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a week between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. (e) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. (f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent police is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 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 considering the anticipatory bail to the petitioner.