Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 154 (MAN)

Lourembam Shyamkesho Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-08-10

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in event of arrest in connection with the FIR No.18(3)2020 under Sections 188/269/307/325/326/427/34 IPC on the file of the Andro Police Station. 2. Heard Mr. L. Sevananda Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.03.2020 at 11.20 p.m., a group of 30/40 persons led by 14 persons, including the petitioners assaulted the complainant and four others by using deadly weapons, such as iron rods and sticks and also attempted to their lives by firing small arms. As a result of which, they got injured in their body. In the course of occurrence, the accused have also damaged the Maruti Baleno car at Leirak Achoua near the transformer located at Yambem Mathak Leikai by using sticks as well as iron rods. 4. Resisting the petitions, the respondents 1 and 2 filed objection stating that in the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioners are also involved in the commission of the crime. When the respondent police made an attempt to arrest them, the petitioners have evaded from the police arrest. Since the custodial interrogation of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid FIR is required, they cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were working as political workers of Lourembam Sanjoy Singh who has been implicated as coaccused with the other unknown persons in a different FIR Case No.30(05) 2020 under Sections 188/325/307/34 IPC and Section 25(1-C)A of Arms Act and he was arrested by the Andro Police in reference to the said case and subsequently, released on bail on 18.5.2020. Immediately on his release, again he was arrested and detained under the National Security Act on 20.05.2020. The petitioners are no way related to Lourembam Sanjoy Singh. 6. The learned counsel would submit that earlier, the petitioners and other accused have filed Cril. Misc. (Ant. Bail) Case No.23 of 2020 before the learned Sessions Jude, Imphal East. Immediately on his release, again he was arrested and detained under the National Security Act on 20.05.2020. The petitioners are no way related to Lourembam Sanjoy Singh. 6. The learned counsel would submit that earlier, the petitioners and other accused have filed Cril. Misc. (Ant. Bail) Case No.23 of 2020 before the learned Sessions Jude, Imphal East. By the order dated 30.5.2020, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail in respect of some of the accused, and some directed to appear before the investigating officer on or before 7.6.2020 and have been directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest on execution of personal bonds of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each of the like amount. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners never involved in the assault and that they have been falsely implicated in this case in conspiracy with political vendetta. He submits that the prosecution story is concocted and in fact the respondent police are trying to arrest the petitioners on false information and report without any valid basis. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners may suffer irreparable loss and injury against their reputation and prestige in the society, if they were not granted anticipatory bail. The petitioners are ready to accept any condition to be imposed by this Court in the event of granting anticipatory bail and also to produce reliable persons to stand as sureties on their behalf. 9. The learned counsel next submitted that the FIR case has been registered against the petitioners and that they were granted pre-arrest bail on 16.06.2020. The petitioners are of the reasonable apprehension that the present FIR may have the very likelihood of implicating them on false charges and grounds. Thus, a prayer is made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners and the other accused. It is the statutory duty of the investigating officer to investigate the case and, as such, naming of the petitioners in the FIR is not mandatory for investigating the case. As such, non-mentioning of the names of the accused in the FIR is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. It is the statutory duty of the investigating officer to investigate the case and, as such, naming of the petitioners in the FIR is not mandatory for investigating the case. As such, non-mentioning of the names of the accused in the FIR is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. More so, in the interest of proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is highly necessary in order to find out the truth. Therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 12. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and in fact they are innocent. The petitioners were never involved in attacking the complainant alleged in the FIR and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 13. Admittedly, the allegation levelled against the petitioners cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same would involve oral and documentary evidence. Though the prosecution contended that the petitioners are involved in the commission of the crime and after concrete evidence, they have made an attempt to arrest them in connection with this case, nothing has been produced to establish the same. According to the prosecution, injured persons are discharged after proper medical treatment. Though the respondent contended that the accused are not co-operation for investigation, nothing has been produced by the prosecution to prove the same. 14. On a perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Judge recorded that there are contradictory statements of the complainants, victims and witnesses. However, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there are sufficient prima facie evidences against some of the accused and accordingly dismissed the pre-attest bail petition. While dismissing the petition, the learned Sessions Judge named three accused, in which the names of the present petitioners not found place. In the alleged crime, there are 30/40 accused involved and the identification of the accused would reveal only during trial. 15. 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. In the alleged crime, there are 30/40 accused involved and the identification of the accused would reveal only during trial. 15. 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. Application 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 at the hands of the respondent police in their petitions. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. 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.' 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 they are not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse the liberty on bail, this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners by imposing appropriate conditions. 23. In view of the above, the applications are allowed. Accordingly, in the event the petitioners are arrested in FIR No.18(3)2020 under Sections 188/269/307/325/326/427/34 IPC on the file of the Andro Police Station, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions: (a) The petitioners shall furnish personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount. Accordingly, in the event the petitioners are arrested in FIR No.18(3)2020 under Sections 188/269/307/325/326/427/34 IPC on the file of the Andro Police Station, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions: (a) The petitioners shall furnish personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) 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 respondent police once in a week at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. (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 petitioners.