JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge him on bail in connection with FIR No.155(06)2022 under Section 17/20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and 489-C IPC on the file of Porompat Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, namely S.I. of Police Mr. S.Suraj Singh of Senapati District, now attached to CDO/IW reported Porompat Police Station that on 4.6.2022 at about 7.00 a.m., he received reliable information from 30 AR and further from his own sources about the presence of some active cadres of RPF/PLA organization, an outlawed banned organization in and around Khurai Soibam Leikai area. Acting on the information, teams of CDO-IW led by P.Achouba Meetei, OC-CDO-IW and the complainant himself under the supervision of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Ops.) rushed to the said area and conducted search operation at some suspected houses. While searching the house of one (L) Soibam Sailesh Meetei of Khurai Soibam Leikai, one unknown person was found in a very suspicious manner. Due to his suspicious nature, he was detained for identification and verification. On verification, he identified himself as Soibam Reynold Meetei of Khurai Soibam Leikaiand on spot search, one Redmi 9A mobile handset along with two sim cards, 95 numbers of fake Rs.500/- currency notes and one voter ID card were found from his possession. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that on preliminary questioning, he disclosed that he is an active member of RFP/PLA organization and started working for the said organization since 3/4 months back and presently he is working under the command of one R.K.Chinglen @ Aggu of Finance of Section of RPF/PLA organization and one Rocky of Finance Section of RPF/PLA organization who was staying at Myanmar. He further disclosed that under the instruction of his commander, he collected huge amount of money from shop owners located at Imphal area and handed over the extorted money to his commander for their party fund. He has also disclosed that he used one Yamaha Fascino blue in colour bearing registration No.MN01AJ-0753 for extortion purpose. The said vehicle was also recovered from his house and was arrested at 9.00 a.m. and recovered items were seized from his possession by observing formalities. 4. Mr. He has also disclosed that he used one Yamaha Fascino blue in colour bearing registration No.MN01AJ-0753 for extortion purpose. The said vehicle was also recovered from his house and was arrested at 9.00 a.m. and recovered items were seized from his possession by observing formalities. 4. Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not at all associated with any unlawful organization and has not involved in the alleged offences. He would submit the petitioner is not a member of any RPF/PLA and is not required in any kind of investigation, nor any kind of further custodial interrogation is required, nor any recovery is to be made at the instance of the petitioner. 5. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner had filed regular bail application before the learned Special Judge (NIA), Imphal East being Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.39 of 2022 and by the order dated 8.7.2022, the learned Special Judge rejected the petition on the ground that the investigation of the present FIR case is still in the nascent stage and there is sufficient material against the petitioner showing prima facie commission of prejudicial/unlawful activities. According to the petitioner, such a finding arrived at by the learned Special Judge is without any material and that the learned Special Judge erred in holding that sufficient materials are available against the petitioner. 6. The learned senior counsel urged that the petitioner had gone to collect some money as asked by his former friend, a fellow drug user and that the petitioner had no knowledge that RK Chinglen @ Aggu is associated with any unlawful organization. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge him on bail. 7. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation and during the police custody when the petitioner was interrogated, he disclosed that on 3.6.2022 at around 11.00 a.m., his friend RK Chinglen @ Aggu called to his mobile phone and instructed to collect some money from one Surjit Singh from DM College Western Gate, Thangmeiband and that RK Chinglen instructed to introduce himself as told by him to Surjit and further stated to take a sum of Rs.1000/- after collecting from the said amount as his pocket money and the remaining money will be kept in his custody. He would submit that Chinglen told he will send his party member to collect money after some days. Then he stopped the communication on phone with Chinglen and that later on, the same day at around 12.30 p.m., as instructed by Chinglen, he alone went on two wheeler at DM College Western Gate. There, he found Surjit and he gave him some money which was packed in a newspaper and then he returned back to home. After reaching home, he opened the packet and found some fake currency notes denomination of Rs.500/- and then he kept the same fake currency in his custody to hand over the same to RK Chinglen. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that in April, 2022, the petitioner went to Kwakeithel Bazar at Relaxo show room and collected a sum of Rs.10,000/- as instructed by RK Chinglen for party fund and RK Chinglen gave him a sum of Rs.1000/- for his pocket money and it has also been circulated in a local newspaper that the petitioner was an active member of RPF/PLA and also he was sending to collect monetary fund for the said unlawful organization. Since the petitioner is highly required to remand into judicial custody and if he is released on bail, proper investigation will not be completed. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the petition. 9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that he never joined any unlawful organization and he is not a member of any RPF/PLA. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the petitioner is the member of RPF/PLA organization, which would be evident from the statement made by him during interrogation that he collected money on behalf of the organization. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner had gone to collect money as asked by his former friend RK Chinglen @ Aggu and that the petitioner had no knowledge that RK Chinglen @ Aggu is associated with any unlawful organization and that if at all the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted, it would be for possession of fake currency notes. 12. 12. On a perusal of the complaint, the SI of Police attached to CDO-IW stated that on preliminary questioning of the petitioner, he disclosed that under the instruction of his commander he collected huge amount of money from shop owners located at Imphal area and handed over the extorted money to his commander for their party fund. It is pertinent to note that the respondent police has not arrested the petitioner while he was collecting amount from shop owners at Imphal area. However, while rejecting the bail application, the learned Special Judge (NIA) observed as under: '6. I have also received the bail/status report along with the case diary. On perusal of the bail/status report, I find facts in corroboration with those alleged by the prosecution. On perusal of the case diary too, I find the accused/petitioner flatly denying association with any unlawful organization, particularly, RPF/PLA. However, I find that the accused/petitioner, in his interrogation statement, time and again mentioned that he collected money on behalf of the organization, despite denying his association with any. 7. In the present instance, the accused/petitioner was instructed by Mr.Chinglen @ Aggu to impersonate the said Mr.Chinglen @ Aggu to one Mr.Surjit Singh, from DM College Western Gate, Thangmeiband and collect some money; to take a sum of Rs.1000/- from the said amount after collection, as his pocket money and keep the remaining in his custody, which was later to be collected by MrChinglen's party member. Further, I also find that the accused had earlier, in April, 2022 collected a sum of Rs.10,000/- as instructed Mr RK Chinglen @ Aggu for party fund from Kwakeithel Bazar at Relaxo Showroom and Mr RK Chinglen @ Aggu gave him a sum of Rs.1000/- for his pocket money.' 13. The aforesaid observation of the learned Special Judge cannot be endorsed at this stage, as the learned Special Judge himself stated that the investigation of the present FIR case is still in its nascent stage. When the investigation is at the beginning stage, how it could be said that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge. At this juncture, prima facie, this Court is of the view that there is no proof to connect the petitioner with the allegations levelled against him and/or to believe that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true. 14. At this juncture, prima facie, this Court is of the view that there is no proof to connect the petitioner with the allegations levelled against him and/or to believe that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that an accused in cases under UA (P) Act was entitled to bail if the Court was satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. There is no need to conduct a mini trial to decide the question of bail. The Court is not supposed to examine the merits and demerits of the evidence. 15. As stated supra, there is no prima facie proof to show that the petitioner has committed the offence alleged against him. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be proved only after conclusion of the trial and at this stage, it is highly impossible to believe the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has involved in any other criminal cases. Though the prosecution contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this initial stage of investigation, there is likelihood to hamper the investigation, nothing has been produced to establish the same. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 4.6.2022. 16. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie true and that the petitioner is in custody for nearly five months and also in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the police or the Court and that he shall not hamper or tamper any evidence and also fully cooperate with the investigation of the case when he is released on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for bail in connection with the FIR in question. 17. For granting bail, this Court is taking the aid of following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 : 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. 17. For granting bail, this Court is taking the aid of following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 : 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 6, 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.' (ii) In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 : 2008 Legal Eagle (SC) 1673, 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)' 18. 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)' 18. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, a 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. 19. As stated supra, 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 on the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail application. This Court, in the earlier paragraphs of this order, only discussed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be proved during trial. 20. Time and again, 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 22. 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 to speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied bail. 23. As stated supra, the petitioner is in custody for nearly five months. The primary purposes of bail 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. 24. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 : 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 973, 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. 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.' 25. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this 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. 26. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 : 1977 Legal Eagle (SC) 276, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '2. 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. 26. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 : 1977 Legal Eagle (SC) 276, 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. 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.' 27. 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 : 2004 Legal Eagle (SC) 252. 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. 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 ball 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. 28. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 : 2018 Legal Eagle (SC) 68, 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. 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. 29. 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. 30. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner would involve oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge ought not to have arrived at a finding that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner showing prima facie commission of prejudicial/unlawful activities. 32. Accordingly, Bail Application No.14 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.155(06)2022 under Section 17/20 UA(P) Act and 489-C IPC on the file of Porompat Police Station, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local sureties each of the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NIA), Imphal East, with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of his residence and the complete address of such place shall be furnished to the learned Special Judge (NIA), Imphal East at the time of release. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. initially for a period of two weeks and thereafter weekly once i.e. every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (iii) If the petitioner has passport, he shall also surrender the same before the learned Special Judge (NIA), Imphal East. (iv) The petitioner shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of 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. (vi) The petitioner is directed to co-operate the investigation and as and when required by the investigating officer, he shall appear before him. (vii) The petitioner shall not commit similar offence. (v) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vi) The petitioner is directed to co-operate the investigation and as and when required by the investigating officer, he shall appear before him. (vii) The petitioner shall not commit similar offence. (viii) 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. (ix) 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 application. (x) The respondent police is directed to expedite the investigation and take necessary further steps in accordance with law.