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.15(3)2021 under Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC on the file of Sekmai Police Station. 2. Heard Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.3.2021 at 3.00 P.M., Rarry Mangsatabam of Thangmeiband reported to the Officer-in-charge of Sekmai Police Station that in the intervening night from 7.00 P.M. of 18.3.2021 and morning of 19.03.2021, the petitioners entered at the complainant's homestead land located at Potshangbam Khunou, Manipur of Tingri-Mapao Thangal Lambi and threatened the men, agents, workers of the complainant and directed to leave the house located at the said homestead land and in the event of not leaving the house warned that they would face dire consequences of assault, hurt and even losing their lives. On 19.3.2021 at about 10.00 A.M., when the workers of the complainant reached the said homestead land, Andy Mangsatabam and Annie Mangsatabam found that the pucca concrete pillar with iron mess wiring were vandalized and destroyed the fencing and the gate has also been found dismantled. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer-in-charge registered a case in FIR No.15(3)2021 under Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC and took up the case for investigation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are businessmen by profession and also holding the post of Chairman and Secretary of Mapao Thangal Village Authority respectively, which is a hill village of Manipur State having its own tradition and custom in regards to holding of land and other rights of the villagers governed by Manipur (Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956. He would submit that sometime in the year 1960, after the enactment of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 those lands located in the foothill of Mapao Thangal Village was parted and included within the land surveyed and was included in the revenue map made under the said Act. The foothill of the village of the petitioners is parted and drawn as C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 of Village No.25, Tingri and the land is being used by the villagers as grazing ground. 5. The foothill of the village of the petitioners is parted and drawn as C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 of Village No.25, Tingri and the land is being used by the villagers as grazing ground. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that in the month of February, 2021, persons identified themselves as children of late Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh along with 4-5 persons came to the land under C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 and attempted to make fencing around the same by claiming that the said land belong to his father late Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh. The villagers confronted to the acts of the said persons and requested not to enter into the said land for doing anything. Despite the request, they erected fencing around the land by claiming that the land belonged to their deceased father. When the petitioners and the villagers questioned them on what capacity they tried to occupy the said land, they replied that their father's name was recorded in the relevant Dag chitta and, therefore, they have right to occupy the said land. 6. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioners and the villagers made inquiry in the office of the SDC, Sekmai about the entries in the land records and during such inquiry, the petitioners found that Dag chittas of the said land was recorded in the name of State as Sarkari land and the name of Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh was wrongly entered in the Dag chitta without showing any allotment order. 7. The learned counsel submitted that earlier the petitioners filed Criminal Misc, Case Nos.121 and 122 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West for anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge though granted interim pre-arrest bail and vide order dated 20.11.2021 dismissed the petitions. 8. The learned counsel next submitted that the petitioners and the villagers of Mapao Thangal Village have filed a civil suit, being O.S.No.38 of 2021, on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West-II for recovery of possession of the land in a representative capacity representing the villagers of Mapao Thangal Village against the complainant and his brother and sister and the said suit is pending for disposal. 9. 9. The learned counsel then submitted that the complainant and his brother and their hired labourers put up two/three sheds with kutcha wall roofed with tin, inside the cattle grazing ground under police protection and by taking advantage of his official status being Additional Advocate General, Manipur. Taking advantage of the post the complainant held, he directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of his deceased father in the Dag chitta. 10. The learned counsel urged that a civil dispute has been coloured as criminal case by the complainant. Without having any right over the lands, the complainant in order to grab the Government land, put up fencing and even raised construction in the said land. The act of the complainant is without any right over the land and that the present complaint has been filed completely ignoring the true facts and that based on the complaint, the police personnel of Sekmai police station are searching to arrest the petitioners on false and fabricated allegations in connection with the above FIR case and that the petitioners have apprehension that they may be arrested by the personnel of Sekmai Police Station. Thus, a prayer is made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 11. Taking through the objection filed on behalf of the complainant, who was permitted to assist the learned Public Prosecutor in this matter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners claim to be the Chairman and the Secretary of the hill village, however, no document has been produced to establish the same and that it is an un-denial fact that Kholel Thangai was the Hereditary Chief/Khulakpa of Mapao Thangal Village and after his death, his son Mayonpam Thangai inherited the Chiefship and is still alive. There cannot be democracy vote in the village of such hill areas as per the provisions of Manipur (Village Authority in Hills Areas) Act, particularly, Section 3(4) of the Act provides that such Chief/Khulakpa in the village shall be ex-officio Chairman of the village. Therefore, the question of the petitioners claiming to be the Chairman and Secretary is per se against the provisions of law and cannot be accepted. 12. Mr. Therefore, the question of the petitioners claiming to be the Chairman and Secretary is per se against the provisions of law and cannot be accepted. 12. Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant had been in actual, conscious, constructive, joint, legal and physical possession of the land under C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374, 1375, 2122, 2223 and 2124 since 1988 in terms of the order passed in Misc. Case 12 (SDC) (IW(N)/1998 as the legal possession, occupancy and all rights thereto were transferred and handed over to late Mangasatabam Punyabati Devi, wife of Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh during her life time and with full consent, Mayonpam Thangal had voluntarily abandoned the possession in favour of Mangsatabam Punyabati Devi during her life time. After the life of the complainant's mother and father, now the complainant is in continuous, uninterrupted, actual and physical possession of the said land till date and the revenue records are also in the name of the complainant. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there were 8 houses in Mapao Thangal Village during survey and now population is 200 persons. The petitioners claim to be presently serving as Chairman and Secretary for nearly 40 years and that in the year 1988 when the parents of the complainant voluntarily handed over the actual possession of the land, the petitioners were of the age of about 5 years and 8 years respectively. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioners being the Chairman and Secretary of the village for the past 40 years. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have trespassed inside the homestead land of the complainant and they have also caused obstruction in the discharge of the public duty to the Electricity Department officials while giving electricity connection to the complainant. The petitioners have threatened and criminally intimidated the officials and also the workers of the complainant with dire consequences by taking the law into their own hands. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that on 18.3.2021 while the workers of the complainant were constructing the boundary fensing inside the homestead land, accused Ningthou brandishing deadly weapons threatened the workers of the complainant with dire consequences that blood will be shed, if workers do not stop the work immediately. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that on 18.3.2021 while the workers of the complainant were constructing the boundary fensing inside the homestead land, accused Ningthou brandishing deadly weapons threatened the workers of the complainant with dire consequences that blood will be shed, if workers do not stop the work immediately. In this regard, the complainant filed another police complaint on 18.3.2021 and that the petitioners and Ningthou along with henchmen committed house trespass in the night and destroyed the pucca concrete pillar, iron mess wiring, iron gate, culvert, house of the complainant in the intervening night on 18.3.2021 at around 4.00 p.m. after completing the day's work. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature, they cannot be granted anticipatory bail. 16. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 17. The grievance of the petitioners is that sometime in the last part of February, 2021, persons identified themselves as children of late Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh along with 4- 5 persons came to the land in C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 and attempted to make fencing around the same by claiming that the said land belong to his father namely Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh. On seeing the act of the said persons, the villagers and the petitioners questioned the same. While so, the family of the petitioners received summon from the respondent police directing them to appear before the Officer-in-Charge of Sekmai Police Station in connection with the FIR case registered based on the complaint given by Rarry Mangsatabam. According to the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated in the case and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. 18. On the other hand, the complainant denied that Mapao Thangal Village is a hill village, as all the lands are covered by the survey of 1960 in terms of the Manipur Land Revenue and Reforms Act, 1960 and its allied Rules, 1961. Further, the land in question is not part of Hills, but part of Village No.25-Tingri village and also not part of Senapati or Kangpokpi District. The revenue records stood in the name of the complainant after the demise of his parents and that the complainant is in physical and actual possession of C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 without any interference or hindrance from any quarter. 19. The revenue records stood in the name of the complainant after the demise of his parents and that the complainant is in physical and actual possession of C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 without any interference or hindrance from any quarter. 19. According to the complainant, he has not put up any construction in the grazing land and he never took advantage of the position held as Additional Advocate General or had made any wrong entry in the Dag chitta as alleged by the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners are evading to co-operate with the investigating officer and because of their noncooperation, the investigation is still on-going. 20. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 19.3.2021 at about 10.00 a.m. when the workers of the complainant reached the homestead land in question, they found that the pucca concrete pillar with iron mess wiring were vandalized and destroyed by the petitioners in the intervening night from 7.00 p.m. on 18.3.2021 and morning of 19.3.2021. In the complaint also, the complainant stated that the accused committed house trespass in the night and destroyed the house of the complainant which is built in the middle portion of the said homestead land. That apart, the accused have also destroyed the toilet and other pucca structures. 21. Earlier the petitioners filed Criminal Misc. (AB) Case Nos.23 and 24 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West and by the order dated 23.3.2021, the learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed Criminal Misc. (AB) No.121 and 122 of 2021 under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. 22. By the order dated 20.11.2021, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petitions thereby cancelled the interim bail dated 23.3.2021 granted to the petitioners and also disposed of the cancellation bail petitions. While rejecting anticipatory bail petitions, the learned Sessions Judge held as under: '8. From the above discussions and findings, this Court comes to the conclusion that the dispute of the suit land must be resolved by the civil court. As the damages on the structures of the suit land is concerned, destroying of any property without process of due law and violation of conditions imposed by this Court, it is presumed to be an act of criminal offence. 9. As the damages on the structures of the suit land is concerned, destroying of any property without process of due law and violation of conditions imposed by this Court, it is presumed to be an act of criminal offence. 9. Thus, this Court finds that proper interrogation of the case is very much necessary to find out the actual incident. Hence, this Court does not want to intervene in the process of investigation. 10. Accordingly, the above two pre-arrest bail applications were rejected and disposed of. The interim bail dated 23rd March, 2021 stands cancelled. 11. The connected Cril Misc Case No.121 of 2021 and 122 of 2021 are also disposed. Send a copy of this order to the OC Sekmai PS for information.' Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have filed the present anticipatory bail petitions. 23. As could be seen from the materials produced by both sides, prima facie, the land in question are covered by the survey of 1960 in terms of the Manipur Land Revenue and Reforms Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder and are not part of Hills. The petitioners claim that the said lands are Hills and not part of survey land. But the petitioners have failed to show any prima facie document to prove their claim. The petitioners have also failed to show any revenue record to show that CS Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 are adjoining Mapao Thangal village of Khongnangpikpi. 24. On a perusal of the written objection filed by the complainant to the pre-arrest bail petitions filed before the learned Sessions Judge, it has been stated as under: '11.10. ..... It is submitted that, as per record, the owner of the land is the State Government. However, the complainants have become the actual owner by law of adverse possession and Law of Prescription, as against the Government, as the complainants has been in continuous, exclusive and undisturbed possession, for more than 30 years to the knowledge of the State Government, as the State Government had always the knowledge about the hostile possession by the complainants since the Complainant had communicated this hostile possession on 08.03.1988 and continuing till date, by correcting the records of possession in the State Government Revenue Department records, for which the Dag Chitha's has been issued by the concerned authorities of the State Government as acknowledgement of this hostile possession. The Complainants has been using, developing and growing food-grains, fruit bearing trees and vegetation in this lands to the exclusive of the State Government. Hence, the Complainant has ripened their lawful title of the said lands, by way of adverse possession against the owner/State Government, on extinguishment of the owner's/State Government title.' 25. That apart, on a perusal of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West-II in Judl. Misc. Case No.77 of 2021 in O.S.No.38 of 2021, it is clear that the petitioners have failed to show any prima facie of prior possession and on the other hand, the complainant and his family members have a strong prima facie case and are at present in possession of the land in question. 26. Thus, from the materials produced by the parties, this Court finds that there is a land dispute between the complainant and the petitioners qua the land under Dag Nos.1373, 1374, 1375, 2133 and 2123. It is also admitted by the parties that civil suit is pending in connection with the lands in question. 27. According to the complainant, his family members have been cultivating paddy since last about 35 years and reaping rice crops through different cultivators from time to time in Dag Nos.2122 and 2133 and even today, paddy fields have been planted by the complainants through their men. According to the complainant, during the pendency of the suit and anticipatory bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge, yet again in the night of 9.10.2021 and 13.10.2021, the petitioners used heavy machineries and destroyed the paddy land, vegetation and boundary mark of the complainant's land of carving out a new road inside the land. The petitioners claim that cattle grazing has been done on even paddy land of the complainant. To prove the same, the petitioners have not produced any document. However, the classification of the land and its possession cannot be decided in these petitions. 28. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR Case No.15(3)2021 registered under Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC. 29. After registration of the FIR Case, the petitioners were summoned and appeared before the investigating officer and the investigating officer has also recorded their statements. Thereafter, the petitioners failed to appear before the investigating officer. 29. After registration of the FIR Case, the petitioners were summoned and appeared before the investigating officer and the investigating officer has also recorded their statements. Thereafter, the petitioners failed to appear before the investigating officer. According to the prosecution, for proper investigation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required. 30. The plea of the prosecution would prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioners in the crime thereby illegally entered the homestead land and destroyed the pucca fencing by using machine in the intervening night of 18.3.2021 and morning of 19.3.2021 with criminal intention and criminal conspiracy and common intention. The investigating officer also suspect only the petitioners for the offence and not others. Even on a perusal of the complaint on its face value, prima facie, clearly makes out all the said ingredients of commission of the offences of Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC. In order to prove the offence, the complainant has also produced photographs. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for by them. Further, the records reveal that the investigation is going on. 31. It is pertinent to note that the learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications has considered the case and has rightly rejected the applications. The learned Sessions Judge also held that even after getting interim bail from the Court, the petitioners made destructions in violation of the conditions imposed in the bail orders. This Court finds no error in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, proper interrogation of the case is very much necessary to find out the truth and this Court does not want to intervene in the process of investigation. 32. In so far as the grant or refusal of the anticipatory bail, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the parameters as under: '112. 32. In so far as the grant or refusal of the anticipatory bail, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the parameters as under: '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 the 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. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 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.' 33. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 , the Hon'ble Apex Court elucidated the principles for consideration of anticipatory bail, which are as under: '19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 434 , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 , and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 ).' 34. An anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. Here, it is a case where prima facie case of the involvement of the petitioner in the crime has been established by the prosecution. Evaluating the entire materials produced by the parties, this Court is of the view that this is not a case falling under the exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek the relief prayed for by them and, accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 35. Having considered the given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited above and also the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 36. In the result, the anticipatory bail applications are dismissed. 37. The interim order already granted by this Court on 20.12.2021 in these two petitions are vacated.