Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 60 (MAN)

Phuritsabam Mukhra Devi v. Officer-in-charge

2022-05-02

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the criminal case under FIR No.47(11)2021 on the file of Sekmai Police Station registered under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned H. Samarjit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2021 at 7.20 a.m., one Sagolsem Bidyasagar Singh of Awang Wabagai Makha reported that on 19.11.2021, his mother Sagolsem (O) Mukhara Devi had lodged a complaint about the missing of his father Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh, who was missing since 3.30 p.m. on 18.11.2021. But, on 21.11.2021 at around 7.00 a.m. the dead body of his father was recovered from the river bed of Imphal river near Awang Wabagai Awang Leikai with multiple injury marks on his forehead. It is suspected that, his father might have been killed and absconded at the place by some unknown miscreants. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 22.11.2021 some police personnel of Sekmai Police Station visited the respective houses of the petitioners and instructed them to come to the police station for interrogation in connection with the criminal case. Accordingly, the petitioners went to the police station and they were interrogated one after another and thereafter in the late evening, they were allowed to leave the police station. Again on 1.12.2021, some police personnel of Sekmai Police Station visited the house of the petitioners 1 to 3 during their absence and warned the family members of the petitioners that they should appear before the police station otherwise they would be in trouble. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that on 3.12.2021 when the petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer, they were interrogated and during interrogation, the first petitioner disclosed that her husband Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh was a drunkard and that her husband abused the entire family members including herself and her sons after consuming liquor most of the time. Thus, she along with her sons attempted to prevent her husband from leaving the house so as to abstain from mingling with bad companies in the locality. While so, the Investigating Officer falsely registered a case against the petitioners that the deceased Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh was killed by the petitioners. 6. Thus, she along with her sons attempted to prevent her husband from leaving the house so as to abstain from mingling with bad companies in the locality. While so, the Investigating Officer falsely registered a case against the petitioners that the deceased Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh was killed by the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and in fact, they are innocent. The post mortem report opined that the death was caused due to intracranial hemorrhage associated with fracture of skull bones resulting from blunt force injury to the head. He would submit the petitioners are very much concerned with the proper investigation of the crime and to punish the real perpetrators of the crime. The petitioners 1 and 2 being wife and son of the deceased continued their search for the truth and they ascertained some individuals from the locality, who had consumed liquor with the deceased on the day of his disappearance. 7. The learned counsel next submitted that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners had committed the offence charged against them. The petitioners have not committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. In the event of their arrest by the police in connection with the above referred case, the petitioners will face an irreparable loss and injury to their reputation in the society and their family members would suffer a lot. The petitioners may be caused and subjected to face a great loss if they are arrested by the police, besides it may malign their reputation in the society and at the same time, it may even cause much detriment to health and safety. He further submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioners and the accusations against them are false and concocted one. 8. The learned counsel then contended that earlier the petitioners approached the Sessions Court by filing anticipatory bail application and the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioners are involved in the torture and assault of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the anticipatory bail application. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, they examined the younger brother of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the anticipatory bail application. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, they examined the younger brother of the deceased. On his examination, he stated that he was separated from his elder brother since last 10 years. In his examination, he stated that his brother Nilakanta Singh was frequently tortured mentally and physically by his wife and her sons by tying with rope and also assaulted by using hammer and deadly weapons and thereby causing fracture on the right side leg. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that on examination, the mother of the deceased stated that in the month of October, 2021, his son Nilakanta Singh was hit with hammer by his sons, thereby causing fracture on his right leg and they also tied legs and hands of the deceased using rope and kept him lying on the ground near his bed. 11. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the examination of the local prosecution witnesses in connection with the case reveal that all are stated the same version of physical and mental torture by the family members which was also supported by the parental family members of the deceased's wife. Since the involvement of the petitioners are prima facie proved, they cannot be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioners and there is no error in it. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the present anticipatory bail application. 12. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 13. The prosecution registered the case against the petitioners, who are the wife, son, brother-in-law and relatives of the deceased Nilakanta Singh for causing death on him. 14. According to the petitioners, they are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioners stated that they are very much concerned with the proper investigation of the crime and to punish the real culprits of the crime. 15. 14. According to the petitioners, they are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioners stated that they are very much concerned with the proper investigation of the crime and to punish the real culprits of the crime. 15. However, as could be seen from the materials produced along with the anticipatory bail application, it is seen that during the course of investigation, the respondent collected the post mortem report, wherein the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem opined that the death was due to intracranial hemorrhages assaulted with fracture of skull bones resulting from blunt force injury to the head. 16. The specific case of the prosecution is that on examination of the brother and mother of the deceased, they clearly stated that the deceased was tortured by his wife and sons, thereby causing fracture to him. Their statement was supported by the local witnesses who categorically stated that there was physical and mental torture by the family members. 17. It is also the say of the prosecution that when the dead body was found on the river, the family members of the deceased had obstructed to the conduct of post mortem over the dead body and had obstructed sit-in-protest and ringing of bell to call out general public to hold meeting in connection with the killing of the deceased. In fact, on examination, the first petitioner stated that while her husband was alive, they used to fight frequently. 18. The aforesaid plea of the prosecution would prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. Since the death was due to intracranial hemorrhages assaulted with fracture of skull bones resulting from blunt injury to the head and the Investigation Officer has suspected only the petitioners for the offence and not others and also the local people stated that the family members used to give torture and even assault on the deceased, 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 on. 19. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application has considered the case and has rigtly rejected the same and this Court finds no error in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 20. Further, the records reveal that the investigation is on. 19. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application has considered the case and has rigtly rejected the same and this Court finds no error in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 20. In so far as the grant or refuse of the anticipatory bail, the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (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. (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.' 21. Further in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 , the Apex Court further 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 .' 22. (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 .' 22. Having considered the given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the 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. 23. In the result, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.