JUDGMENT 1. This petition has 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.140(12)2018 registered under Section 120B/420 IPC on the file of the City Police Station. 2. Heard Mr. M. Ibotombi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. On 6.9.2018, the complainant Rupobati Devi made a complaint before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West and the CJM, Imphal West, took the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by directing the respondent for investigation and report and accordingly, the respondent registered an FIR being FIR Case No.140(12)2018 City PS under Section 120B/420 IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant filed a private complaint before the Learned CJM, Imphal West stating that during February, 2016, the petitioners proposed to the complainant for selling of one stall measuring 8 x 8 = 64 sq. ft. of temporary market shed situate at B.T. Road, Imphal West. In the meantime, the petitioners have shown relevant documents in respect of the said stall to the complainant viz., a copy of the order dated 7.2.2014 of the office of the Chairperson, Imphal Municipality consisting the names of allottees of the stalls. On 17.2.2016, the petitioners came to the residence of the complainant and requested for paying advance money not less than Rs.3.10 lakh in respect of stall No.34 allotted in the name of Lukram Inao Singh of Tera in connection with the sale and purchase as agreed upon. Accordingly, the petitioners have received Rs.3.10 lakh being advance payment as paid by the complainant for purchasing the said stall. However, the petitioners have fraudulently published in the name of Lukram Inao Singh, a text, in local Manipuri daily - Huyenlanpao dated 2.3.2016 stating that Lukram consented to transfer and mutate shop bearing stall No.34 and anybody was willing to make objection, they may object within 10 days of the publication. Lukram Inao Singh is the allottee of stall No.34 as shown in the order dated 7.2.2014. 5. Lukram Inao Singh is the allottee of stall No.34 as shown in the order dated 7.2.2014. 5. On 15.5.2017, the petitioners again came to the residence of the complainant and collected a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh on the pretext of paying the said amount to the authority of Imphal Municipal Corporation from the complainant for favouring of the said purchase in respect of the said stall. On 9.10.2017 the petitioners came at the residence of the complainant and requested for paying another sum of Rs.1.00 lakh more on the pretext of changing of stall No.34 allotted in the name of Ch. Kumar of Bamon Kampu. On 11.10.2017, the second petitioner under false representation of a special power of attorney holder of Shop No.58, B.T. Road, Block II came to the complainant's house along with the first petitioner, talked sometime and induced the complainant to pay sum of Rs.4.00 lakh in addition to the previously paid amount of Rs.5.30 lakh as the new shop/stall stands in the line of B.T. Road and being more profitable shop/stall than the shop No.45, Block II. In accordance with the proposal made by the petitioners, the complainant paid Rs.1.00 lakh on 11.10.2017 and Rs.2.00 lakh on 13.10.2017 then on 14.10.2017 a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. Thus, the petitioners received a sum of Rs.9.30 lakh from the complainant for which they have acknowledged and issued receipt. 6. On 14.10.2017, the petitioners assured the complainant that the said shop will be emptied with its articles and furniture and they will hand over its lock and key to the complainant within 3/4 days. The second petitioner also shown an affidavit of special power of attorney executed by A.Kulachandra Singh in favour of her in respect of shop plot S.No.II-58 B.T. Road measuring an area of 8 x 8 sq.ft. and stated that the said shop plot No.58 hereby transferred to the complainant. Subsequently, on 17.3.2018 and 19.3.2018, the petitioners collected a sum of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively from the complainant through accused Konjengban Ongbi Premabati Devi and Salam Ongbi Matouleibi Devi at the residence of the complainant. 7. On 22.5.2018, the complainant found the said stall bearing stall No.58, B.T. Road to have been possessed by another person and on an enquiry, the complainant learnt that the concerned authority had allotted the said stall bearing No.58 to the said person. 7. On 22.5.2018, the complainant found the said stall bearing stall No.58, B.T. Road to have been possessed by another person and on an enquiry, the complainant learnt that the concerned authority had allotted the said stall bearing No.58 to the said person. Thus, the petitioners conspired fraudulently or dishonestly and intentionally induced the complainant to pay the entire sum of Rs.9.30 lakh and another Rs.1.00 lakh as consideration in respect of the said stall on the pretext of selling and transferring etc. Hence, the complainant is being cheated by the petitioners. Accordingly, a criminal case in FIR No.140(12)2018 was registered by City PS under Section 120-B/420 IPC. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is a government employee working in the Department of Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Lamphel while the second petitioner is the Secretary of Bazar Board, Imphal having a long standing social service in the State of Manipur. He would submit that earlier there were settlements between the complainant and the petitioners for selling and purchasing a shop plot having 8 x 8 ft. a temporary shed situated at B.T. Road at theconsideration of Rs.17.00 lakh and thus, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.9.30 lakhs on installment. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that on failure of the payment of settled amount of Rs.17.00 lakh and the conduct of the complainant for paying installment basis, the petitioners clued up the complainant that the shop plot may be allowed to sell on a higher price to other person and her paid amount shall be returned on the fact that the settled amount of Rs.17.00 lakh is required urgently. Since the complainant failed to meet the required amount in time, the said plot-shop was sold to other person. However, on 6.9.2018, the complainant lodged a complaint before the CJM, Imphal West and the said complaint was taken as Complaint Petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., thereby directing the respondent for investigation and report and the respondent in turn registered an FIR Case No.140(12)2018. 10. However, on 6.9.2018, the complainant lodged a complaint before the CJM, Imphal West and the said complaint was taken as Complaint Petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., thereby directing the respondent for investigation and report and the respondent in turn registered an FIR Case No.140(12)2018. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent asked the petitioners to appear before him and accordingly on 23.1.2018 at about 2 p.m., they appeared and the respondent recorded the statement of the petitioners and released them with a stern warning to appear again on 30.1.2018 with a sum of Rs.10.00 lakh which was induced to the petitioners on behalf of the complainant. However, after due calculation it was finally agreed to return a sum of Rs.9.30 lakh to the complainant. 11. The learned counsel next submitted that a sum of Rs.23,000/- and Rs.57,000/- have been paid to the complainant and third installment of Rs.1.20 lakh was paid on 20.12.2018. Thus, out of Rs.9.30 lakh, a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh was paid to the complainant. The said fact is a matter of record as submitted by the respondent in a report addressed to the CJM, Imphal West in Report on Criminal (Invest) Case No.206/2018. 12. The learned counsel urged that while the petitioners were ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs.7.00 lakh, the Covid-19 has started in the State and lockdowns were extended and as such the petitioners could not pay the due amount. Nevertheless, the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the aforesaid amount on installment basis, but refused by the complainant. Since the respondent started his action to effect arrest of the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court for anticipatory bail. 13. The learned counsel finally argued that the allegations contained in the FIR/complaint are vague and did not disclose any offence of cheating and that the petitioners are persons of clean antecedents and have never been involved in any case except the present one. In fact, they have been falsely implicated in this case. Earlier, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Imphal West for granting anticipatory bail to them and by the order dated 19.1.2022, their anticipatory bail petition was dismissed. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail. 14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the direction of the CJM, Imphal West, the Investigation Officer took up investigation and examined witnesses. Earlier, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Imphal West for granting anticipatory bail to them and by the order dated 19.1.2022, their anticipatory bail petition was dismissed. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail. 14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the direction of the CJM, Imphal West, the Investigation Officer took up investigation and examined witnesses. As such, whether the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case can only be ascertained after necessary examination is made on them and any relevant documents are seized from their possession. He would submit that running away from police examination under the law and contending innocence will not help the petitioners in any manner under the law. Hand of the law may not be too short to reach out the absconding accused and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 15. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 16. The allegation leveled against the petitioners is that the petitioners and two other accused have conspired fraudulently and intentionally induced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.11.30 lakh as consideration in respect of the stall bearing No.58 at B.T. Road on the pretext of selling and transferring. In the instant anticipatory bail petition, the petitioners disputed the receipt of Rs.11.30 lakh. The petitioner stated that they are ready to pay Rs.7.00 lakh that is the amount due to the complainant. Since the alleged cheating by the petitioners and the counter-allegation leveled by the petitioners against the complainant are matter of evidence, this Court has not gone into the merits of the complaint. 17. However, upon filing of private complaint, the learned CJM, Imphal West ordered investigation in this matter and pursuant to the direction of the CJM, Imphal West, the City PS conducted investigation in Criminal Miscellaneous (Investigation) Case No.206 of 2018 and filed a report before the CJM, Imphal West seeking to allow them to register a criminal case against the accused persons. The report of the Office-in-charge of City Police Station, dated 6.12.2018 submitted to the CJM, Imphal West reads thus: 'In compliance with an order of your Honour, SI L.Petersony of City-PS have conducted an investigation based on the complaint petition lodged in the Hon'ble Court by Smt. M.Rupobati Devi aged 66 yrs W/o Khuraijam Joyprakash Singh of Sagolband Sayang Pukhri Mapal against Manoharmayum (O) Bindini Devi aged 58 yrs W/o.M.Gambhi Sharma of Nagaapal Singjubung Leirak. During the course of investigation, the complainant on examination expressed her desire to get back her money but not to proceed criminal proceedings as far as possible. Accordingly, summoned the two main accused persons i.e. M.Binodini Devi and S.Jamuna Devi and on examination they admitted the facts of the case. They assured that they will pay back the money i.e. 9,30,000/- in installments. The complainant also agreed in the condition that in case of default therein criminal case may be initiated. Hence a sum of Rs.23,000/- and Rs.57,000/- have been paid back to the complainant in two different installments. The third installment of Rs.1,20,000/- is being paid on 20th December, 2018. Hence, so far no regular case is registered till date. Hon'ble Magistrate is therefore prayed to allow initiation of registration of criminal case against the accused persons as and when they default any condition in future.' 18. According to the petitioners, when the petitioners were ready to pay the remaining Rs.7.00 lakh, Covid-19 pandemic started and they could not able to pay the due amount and they are ready to pay the aforesaid amount on installment basis. Since the petitioners failed to act upon the promise, the respondent police started their action to effect arrest of the petitioners in the registered case. 19. As stated supra, the question of cheating alleged by the complainant against the petitioners cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same would involve oral examination of the witnesses. At the same time, the fundamental rights of the petitioners being women should not be curtailed for any reason whatsoever. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assured that the petitioners are ready to co-operate the investigating officer and they will not hamper or tamper the witnesses. 20. The provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assured that the petitioners are ready to co-operate the investigating officer and they will not hamper or tamper the witnesses. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 22. 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.' 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 v. The State of Maharashtra and Others, decided on 11.11.2020. 26. Though the offence alleged in the instant case is in the nature of cheating, mere lodging of private complaint against the petitioners alone cannot form the basis for refusal of anticipatory bail. As stated supra, the parties were also ready to settle the claim. Apart from this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not point out any material to show that the petitioners have sought to influence the investigation. 27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any indication that the petitioners will flee the process of law, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners can be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by imposing appropriate conditions. 28. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any indication that the petitioners will flee the process of law, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners can be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by imposing appropriate conditions. 28. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Accordingly, in the event, the petitioners are arrested in FIR No.140(12)2018 on the file of the City Police Station registered under Section 120-B/420 IPC, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions: (a) They shall furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each and one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. (b) They shall cooperate with the investigation. (c) They shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a week days between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. (d) They shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. 29. Needless to say that if the petitioners violate any of the conditions stated above, the relief of anticipatory bail granted to them shall stand recalled. 30. It is made clear that the observations made in this order, are limited to the question of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.