Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 208 (MAN)

Thokchom Jitendro Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-10-19

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in connection with FIR No.106(5)2022 under Section 304/34 IPC read with Section 364-A/390/109 IPC on the file of Imphal Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.5.2022 at 1.30 a.m., one Arambam Kombirel Devi reported that on 2.5.2022 at about 9.30 a.m., her son Arambam Nanao Singh was abducted by 3/4 unknown persons in civil dress, who came in a car from the road nearby their house located at Sagoiband Kangabam Leikai. One of the said team identified himself as SI Jitendro (petitioner) who came in a white Activa, asked to come to Imphal Police Station. After half an hour, the police team in civil dress also picked up Nanao's Swift car which was parked at the road side. Later, she arrived at Imphal Police Station at around 10.30 a.m. of the same day. After a long wait, she happened to meet SI Jitendro at 1.30 p.m. After meeting with him, he warned that unless Rs.5 lakh is paid till 4.00 p.m. of the same day, he will not be relieved. She was made to sign on a piece of paper stating that her son has been arrested in a case and served her a copy. While managing to settle the matter, the police team brought her son Arambam Nanao Singh at her resident at 4.00 p.m. and the said police team brought him in his room. At that time, no family members were allowed entry in the room by the police team. Having heard to save her life, while attempted to enter his room by his younger brother Arambam Manju Singh, he was pushed back by his neck. After that, Nanao's grandmother, Arambam (O) Memcha Devi @ Leibakleima was also pushed back very hard. After a while, Nanao was taken out of his room in an unconscious state. Later, he was evacuated to RIMS Hospital by two police personnel (one in uniform and one in civil dress) along with her son Manju and Sanabam Nilakanta Singh in a fourt-wheeler car of Nilakanta. However, he expired at RIMS Hospital despite medical treatment. Based on the complaint, the Imphal Police registered a case in FIR No.106(5)2022 under Section 304/34 IPC against the petitioner. 3. However, he expired at RIMS Hospital despite medical treatment. Based on the complaint, the Imphal Police registered a case in FIR No.106(5)2022 under Section 304/34 IPC against the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that neither the FIR nor the investigation discloses any ingredients to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is a simple police officer coming from a reputed family and has an impeccable and untarnished image and no past criminal records in his name. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has not done any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he filed the present petition for bail. 4. Opposing the bail application, the respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner picked up the deceased Nanao and he kept the deceased in his custody. While the deceased was in his custody, he alone beat up the deceased, thereby committed custodial torture and atrocity on the deceased. In the evening of 2.5.2022, the petitioner brought the deceased at the house of the deceased and other security personnel simply accompanied him on his instruction. At the house of the deceased, only the petitioner committed brutality and atrocity towards the deceased and his family. The investigation so far thus reveals the misuse of power, abuse of power and atrocity committed by the petitioner against the deceased while the deceased was in his custody. 5. Mr. Gunedhor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the present case on his surrender and that as a Sub-Inspector of Police of Imphal Police Station, he made a preliminary enquiry based on a report made by one Kangabam Jacky alleging that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was one of his goldsmiths and he had misappropriated gold amounting to Rs.9.60 lakh meant for making gold necklace of 15 tolas and that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was arrested in connection with GD.No.30/IPS/2022 dated 1.5.2022. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was brought to his home for recovery of gold under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as he admitted that he had kept some gold in his residence. The police team led by the petitioner went inside his room and at that time, Arambam Nanao Singh collapsed there, after consuming some substance suspected to be the acid used in making gold jewelry. 7. The police team led by the petitioner went inside his room and at that time, Arambam Nanao Singh collapsed there, after consuming some substance suspected to be the acid used in making gold jewelry. 7. The learned counsel next submitted that the immediate reason for consuming the substance as stated above may be attributed to his own wife's utterances which instigated him to die and the video footings of the same went viral in social media platforms. To such utterances of his wife, the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh became visibly emotional which may trigger him to consume the fatal substances. Hence, there is no prima facie material to attract Section 304 IPC. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the video footage, it was seen that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was healthy and spoken to the people present there, including his wife normally when brought to his residence by the police team. Had he died because of the alleged torture in the police custody, he would not have behave that way. In fact, the Arambam Nanao Singh died due to consumption of poison and not because of assault by the petitioner. When the petitioner earlier approached the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West for bail, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2022 holding that there are sufficient prima facie evidence and does not find enough reason to allow the bail application. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge erred in arriving at such conclusion, as there was no signs of torture of physical assault on the body of the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh. Thus, a prayer is made to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that neither there is registered FIR case with regard to the alleged report submitted by Kangabam Jacky, nor general diary entry in the register. The alleged recovery stated by the petitioner are all concocted and without registering the case, recovery cannot be made. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses clearly establish that the accused interrogated the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh with loud and heated voice and also beaten up severely with cane stick and that the prima facie case established against the petitioner. 11. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses clearly establish that the accused interrogated the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh with loud and heated voice and also beaten up severely with cane stick and that the prima facie case established against the petitioner. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, after analyzing the matter in details, rightly dismissed the bail application and that the death of the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was due to misuse of police power by the petitioner. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the bail application. 12. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 13. According to the petitioner, he is a simple police officer and innocent of all the charges levelled against him. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The investigation is almost completed. The learned Sessions Judge failed to apply its judicial mind while dismissing the bail application, as the learned Judge only relied on his opinion based on the incomplete and initial post mortem report. 14. According to the prosecution, the petitioner picked up the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh from his residence and put in the lock-up of Imphal Police Station; the petitioner took away the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh from the lock up of Imphal Police Station to his residence to recover gold ornaments; the petitioner demanded Rs.5 lakh from the family members of the deceased for his release; deceased Arambam Nanao Singh died while in the custody of the petitioner; final post mortem report indicates 'no toxic could be detected'. 15. The specific case of the petitioner is that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was arrested by him in connection with the report lodged by one Kangabam Jacky alleging that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh had misappropriated gold amounting to Rs.9.60 lakh meant for making gold necklace of 15 tolas. On enquiry based on the report of Kangabam Jacky, the deceased admitted that he had kept some gold in his residence and if he can be taken to his house, he will produce the misappropriated gold. On enquiry based on the report of Kangabam Jacky, the deceased admitted that he had kept some gold in his residence and if he can be taken to his house, he will produce the misappropriated gold. On his statement, the petitioner and his team took the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh to his house and when the petitioner and his team and the deceased went inside the room, the deceased suddenly took acid, which was kept for making gold jewelry and consumed, thereby collapsed. According to the petitioner, there is a video footage indicating that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh had consumed acid, which went viral in social media. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside, as nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show that there was enmity between the petitioner and the deceased prior to the alleged occurrence. 16. The complainant in her report stated that on 2.5.2022 at about 1.30 a.m., her son Arambam Nanao Singh was abducted by 3/4 unknown persons in civil dress and the petitioner, identified himself as SI Jitendro asked her son to come to the Police Station and they have taken her son to the Imphal Police Station, where the petitioner demanded Rs.5 lakh for his release. While managing to settle the amount, the police team brought her son at her residence at 4.00 p.m. and the police team brought him in his room. After a while, her son Arambam Nanao Singh was taken out of his room in an unconscious state and her son died at RIMS Hospital despite treatment. 17. On a perusal of the report of the complainant, it is clear that the complainant has not specifically stated that the petitioner has brutally attacked her son Arambam Nanao Singh while he was in lock-up and also inside his room. Further, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the bail application observed that some witnesses have stated that the accused person interrogated the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh and beaten up severely with cane stick. The aforesaid finding of the learned Sessions Judge is not founded. Prima facie, at this stage, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner has tortured the deceased and assaulted him and due to the assault, he died, as alleged by the prosecution. These are all matter of evidence. The aforesaid finding of the learned Sessions Judge is not founded. Prima facie, at this stage, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner has tortured the deceased and assaulted him and due to the assault, he died, as alleged by the prosecution. These are all matter of evidence. Only after adducing oral evidence and documentary, the same can be decided. 18. Prima facie, there are possibilities of the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh consuming acid after entering into his room, as according to the prosecution, the deceased was brought to his residence in a healthy state, which proves that the deceased was not tortured or made physical assault at the police station by the petitioner or a police team. 19. The investigating officer submitted an expert opinion before the learned Sessions Judge and in his letter dated 29.7.2022, he has stated that 'the final post mortem report was collected from the Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS and concerned doctor opined that 'no toxics could be detected on toxicological analysis, however based on the histopathological and post mortem examination findings, the death was due to histotoxic anoxia'. The cause of death i.e. histotoxic anoxia is poisoning of the respiratory enzyme systems of the tissues, as inhibition of cytochrome oxidase by cyanide because of the inability of tissue cells tissue oxygen, its in arterial and capillary blood is usually greater than normal. In view of the above, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh died due to consumption of poison and not because of assault by the petitioner has some substance. 20. Prima facie, there was no material to show that the petitioner alone picked up the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh and he kept the deceased in his custody and while the deceased was in his custody, the petitioner beat up the deceased. Though the respondents contended that the investigation reveals the misuse of power, abuse of power and atrocity committed by the petitioner against the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh, nothing has been produced to establish the same. In the absence of any material, it cannot be said that the petitioner tortured the deceased and physically assaulted him. 21. Earlier, the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.55 of 2022 for grant of bail before learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West. In the absence of any material, it cannot be said that the petitioner tortured the deceased and physically assaulted him. 21. Earlier, the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.55 of 2022 for grant of bail before learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West. By the order dated 10.8.2022, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application. In the operative portion, the learned Single Judge observed as under: '12. It is clear from the above discussion that the deceased was arrested without registering a proper FIR and he died while in the custody of SI Jitendro and there are signs of torture of physical assault. The plea that the deceased die from consuming suspected substance (acid) is not clearly established from the post mortem report, as toxicology report from CFSL, Kolkata indicated absence of toxics. The cause of death due to 'Histotoxic Anoxia' is to be examined during the trial and it will be not be proper to conclude the same during the hearing of bail application in view of the not so clear post mortem report. This Court finds that apparently the investigation is not carried out to find out all possible angles and to unearth all possible suspects.' 22. When the learned Sessions Judge is of the view that the cause of death due to 'histotoxic anoxia' is to be examined during trial and it will not be proper to conclude the same during the hearing of bail application, the same principle has to be adopted while dealing the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. The learned Judge ought not to have come to a conclusion that the deceased died while in the custody of the petitioner, as the same would involve oral and documentary evidence and at this stage, it will not be proper to conclude that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh died while in the custody of the petitioner. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge erred in arriving at a finding that there are sufficient prima facie evidence. 23. The petitioner was arrested on surrender on 3.5.2022 and since then, he is in jail. The petitioner has no past criminal records or no any kind of antecedent. It is reported that best part of investigation completed in this case. When the best part of investigation completed, there is no chance of the petitioner interfering in the investigation. 23. The petitioner was arrested on surrender on 3.5.2022 and since then, he is in jail. The petitioner has no past criminal records or no any kind of antecedent. It is reported that best part of investigation completed in this case. When the best part of investigation completed, there is no chance of the petitioner interfering in the investigation. The petitioner contended that other co-accused have not been arrested by the respondent police. On the other hand, it is the say of the respondent that except the petitioner, there has been no detection of any other person involving in the commission of the offence in the FIR in question. The involvement of other co-accused or there was no detection of any other person involved in the commission of the offence are all also matter of evidence. At this stage, the same cannot be decided. 24. On a perusal of the records, including the FIR and its connected papers, it reveal that the deceased died on account of consumption of poison at his house when brought by the police team. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner issued arrest memo to the mother of the deceased at the time of his arrest and the deceased was brought and kept in lock up of Imphal Police Station. Thus, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 304, 364-A and 390 is completely lacking as alleged in the FIR. 25. It is apposite to mention that in a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the accused would be readily available for the trial or he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. 26. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be penalized merely because he was arrayed as an accused and the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the petitioner for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioner is against the constitutional right and liberty. 27. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be penalized merely because he was arrayed as an accused and the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the petitioner for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioner is against the constitutional right and liberty. 27. It is to be mentioned that it is the Court which has the last say on whether there exists any reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of committing the offence. Furthermore, there is no blanket bar as such which is imposed on the Court on granting of bail in such case and that the Court can exercise discretion in releasing the accused as long as reasons are recorded which clearly disclose how the discretion has been exercised. 28. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2020) SCC OnLine 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that despite the alleged offence being grave and serious, and there being several criminal cases pending against the accused, these factors by themselves cannot be the basis for the refusal of the prayer for bail. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has an impeccable and untarnished image and no past criminal records in his name. 29. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 30. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 30. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioner is in jail for more than five months but till date the investigation is not completed. The respondent also not reported that other accused in connection with this case was arrested. 31. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: '7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)' 32. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and noted that no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. 33. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: '12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant of rejection of bail. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant of rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter of trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.' 34. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. 35. There is no quarrel over the proposition that where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 36. Admittedly, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and, thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police to complete the investigation and file charge sheet, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail application. 37. In a catena of decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as "reasonable, just, fair" so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 37. In a catena of decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as "reasonable, just, fair" so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 38. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception'. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 39. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled for speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied bail. 40. The primary purposes of ball in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of detaining him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 41. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: '21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.' 42. As stated supra, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 43. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.' 44. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 45. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 46. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. 47. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 48. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient bonds and he is also ready to co-operate with the investigating officer and also he will abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while ordering bail. 49. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time and that the veracity of the allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial. That apart, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice, as he is a responsible police officer, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 50. 50. Accordingly, Bail Application No.20 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR Case No.106(5)2022 under Sections 304/34 IPC read with Section 364-A/390/109 IPPC on the file of Imphal Police Station, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not leave the place of residence without permission of the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West and shall ordinarily reside at a place of residence and the complete address of such place shall be furnished to the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West at the time of release. (ii) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (iii) If the petitioner has a passport, he shall also surrender the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West. (iv) The petitioner shall not contact, visit or threaten or offer any inducement to the prosecution witnesses. (v) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vii) The petitioner shall not do anything against the investigation of the case. (viii) The petitioner shall always be available to the investigating officer, if required by him and shall co-operate with him as required. (ix) It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (viii) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail petition.