Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 79 (MAN)

Rekibuddin Ahamed v. State of Manipur

2022-05-18

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. I heard Mr. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP for the State respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing the petitioner, who is the third accused, on bail in connection with FIR No.06(02)2022 NAB-PS under Sections 22(C)/29/60(3) ND & PS Act. 3. The facts in a nutshell are as under: On 20.2.2022, the complainant, ASI of NAB PS, Manipur, along with his posse, conducted random frisking and checking at Tangjeng, Thoubal District, Manipur area. On noticing two vehicles, viz., Toyota Fortuner bearing registration No.MN 06 LB 5094 and Maruti Suzuki SX4 bearing registration No.MN 06 LA 7947, being driven with high speed towards Imphal, in a suspicious manner, the frisking team signalled to stop the cars. The cars did not stop. However, the police team overpowered the cars and detained them at the spot for verification. 4. On verification, the petitioner identified himself as Rekibuddin Ahamed and on searching his body, the police team seized his mobile phone, ATM cards, Voter ID, Driving Licence and cash of Rs.50,000/-. The accused was arrested at 4.50 PM on the same day. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he owns small car auction business at Guwahati and visits Manipur on regular basis for his business purpose and as a tourist, and that he went to Moreh for shopping. Moreover, no drugs or incriminating articles were found to be in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner boarded in Toyota Fortuner and he had no knowledge of any illegal drugs being carried in Maruthi Suzuki car. It is added that there is no witness during the search of the said car. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has been languishing in jail for about two months since arrest and he has no criminal antecedents. 7. The petitioner moved a bail application bearing Cril Misc. (B) Case No.47 of 2022 before the learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Thoubal. However, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail application solely on the ground that unless the names of persons with whom the petitioner had bank transactions are identified, there can be no conclusion. 8. 7. The petitioner moved a bail application bearing Cril Misc. (B) Case No.47 of 2022 before the learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Thoubal. However, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail application solely on the ground that unless the names of persons with whom the petitioner had bank transactions are identified, there can be no conclusion. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that all the accused who boarded Toyota Fortuner were released on bail except the petitioner, who is the third accused in the FIR. 9. In the affidavit of objection filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is averred that 30 packets containing WY Methamphetamine Tablets, weighing about 34 kg, were recovered from the possession and on production by accused Nos.1 and 2. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 brought the seized contraband items in the schemed rear seat of the seized XS-4 Car, bring driven by the first accused, and financed by four arrested accused persons, being Accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. 10. It is the case of the respondent authorities that the accused Nos.1 and 2 stated that they were endorsed with the seized vehicle SX-4 car by the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 to procure the seized contraband items in the specifically designed cavity of the rear seat of the seized XS-4 Maruti Suzuki car. 11. It is the further case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner, who is the third accused, is the husband of the fourth accused. Both the accused stayed together at Hotel Elora, Moreh, on the night of 19.2.2022 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot plead ignorance to carrying the contraband items. 12. The petitioner, being a resident of Guwahati, if released on bail, the investigation agency will find it difficult to find him again when required and he may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. 13. Heard the learned counsel on either side, who reiterated the averments made in the affidavits filed in this case. 14. It is not in dispute that all the accused persons who boarded in the Toyota Fortuner were released on bail, except the petitioner, who is the third accused in the FIR. 15. Admittedly, the first accused was released on bail on 20.4.2022 in Cril.Misc. (B) Case No.50 of 2022. 14. It is not in dispute that all the accused persons who boarded in the Toyota Fortuner were released on bail, except the petitioner, who is the third accused in the FIR. 15. Admittedly, the first accused was released on bail on 20.4.2022 in Cril.Misc. (B) Case No.50 of 2022. The second accused and fourth accused were released on bail by orders dated 13.4.2022 and 21.4.2022, respectively, by the learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Thoubal. 16. The petitioner has been remanded in police custody since 21.2.2022 till 5.3.2022 and thereafter he has been remanded in judicial custody at Sajiwa Central Jail till date. 17. 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 prejudged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. 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. 18. As stated supra, the allegation levelled against the present petitioner is to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis on the merits of the allegation cannot be gone into. 19. Time and again, the Apex 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. 20. 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. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. In the instant case, as admitted by the prosecution, the investigation is in good progress. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner is in custody from 21.2.2022 and the other co-accused in the same vehicle were released on bail. The primary purpose of ball in a criminal case is to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping 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. 23. 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.' 24. The Apex Court as well as this Court in number of cases 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. 25. 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.' 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the bail 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. 29. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner would involve oral and documentary evidence, no contraband was seized from the possession of the present petitioner; co-accused using the same vehicle were also released on bail and also in view of the undertaking by the petitioner that he will not attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 30. Considering the arguments advanced by both the counsels, I am inclined to pass the following orders :- 1) This bail application is allowed. 2) The petitioner is directed to produce sureties for Rs. 1 lakh with 2 sureties of like sum to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Thoubal, Manipur. 3) The petitioner is directed to report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 A.M. for 1 (one) week. Thereafter, as and when required by the respondent police. 4) The petitioner shall not leave the State without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Manipur. 5) If any violation of the order, the Prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail.