Abidur Rahaman Laskar vs The State Of Manipur - Represented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 81 Mani

                                                                                  Page |1



Yumk     Digitally signed              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
         by Yumkham
ham      Rother
         Date: 2021.03.24
                                                 AT IMPHAL
Rother   12:53:13 +05'30'

                                           Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021

                   Abidur Rahaman Laskar, aged about 33 years, S/o Nur
                   Ahmed Laskar of Ujan Tarapur, P.S. Lakhipur Cachar,
                   Assam, now at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.

                                                                    -- -- -- Petitioner

                                            - VERSUS -

                   1.       The State of Manipur - represented by the Chief
                            Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur at Imphal;

                   2.       The Officer-in-Charge, Jiribam P.S., Govt. of Manipur at
                            Jiribam.
                                                               -- -- -- Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the petitioner :: Mr. Th. Babloo, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. Y. Ashang, PP

Date of Hearing and Reserving Judgment & Order :: 05.03.2021

Date of Judgment & Order :: 23.03.2021

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |2

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

I heard Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP for the respondents.

[2] The petitioner has challenged the order passed by

the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur in FIR No.

04(02)2020 JBM P.S. U/S 21(b)/60(3) ND&PS Act dated

19.09.2020.

[3] According to the petitioner, he was arrested on

20.02.2020 by the Jiribam Police for the allegation that the

petitioner carried contraband psychotropic substances and

remanded into police custody till 27.02.2020 by the Court and

then to judicial custody. Since then he is in jail on the charge of

carrying contraband psychotropic substances.

[4] It is the further case of the petitioner that after

completion of 180 days no charge sheet has been filed by the

respondent police and hence, the learned Special Court

(ND&PS), Manipur has passed the present impugned default bail

order dated 19.09.2020 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the

Learned Special Judge was pleased to release him on bail

subject to his furnishing of a P.R. Bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |3

sureties of like amount. It has been further directed by the Court

that the petitioner shall also deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-

which will be refunded after conclusion of trial.

[5] Being aggrieved by the said order of the Learned

Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur this instant petition has been

filed by the petitioner on the inter alia ground that the petitioner

is a poor person and the conditions imposed by the learned

Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur amounts to denial of bail itself

that the insistence of deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- not only harsh but

oppressive that Section 441 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate

a power of demanding of cash security by the learned Special

Court (ND&PS), Manipur for the release of the petitioner on bail

under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is rendered a virtual denial

and that imposition of conditions which the petitioner being a poor

man cannot fulfil his violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

[6] No counter affidavit has been filed by the

respondents but Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP for the respondents

made oral submissions by representing that the learned Special

Court (ND&PS), Manipur has passed rightly by following the

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |4

orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.

Thamisharasi & Ors. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 190.

[7] Mr. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioner

represented that the issue involved herein is already been

decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.10.2020 in

Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police,

Criminal Appeal No. 681-682 of 2020 and based on that orders,

this Hon'ble Court passed judgment and orders in (i) Cril. Petn.

No. 28 of 2020, Jangpao Haokip Vs. The State of Manipur &

Anr. dated 21.12.2020 and (ii) Criminal Revision Petition No.

2020, Mr. Jamkhomang Baite Vs. The State of Manipur dated

28.01.2021.

[8] Hence, the said decisions rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and by this Court is squarely applicable to the

petitioner's case also. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow

the criminal petition as prayed in this petition.

[9] This Court heard both the parties and also perused

the documents and the citations produced by both the parties.

[10] On the expiry of the statutory period, the learned

Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur by in its order dated 19.09.2020

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |5

under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. releasing the petitioner on default

bail/statutory bail, the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur

vide its order dated 19.09.2020 was pleased to release the

petitioner on bail but unfortunately, by releasing him on bail, the

learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur had imposed certain

conditions vide its order dated 19.09.2020 and the relevant

portion reads as under :-

"Accused Abidur Rahman Laskar interacted through

V/C.

Heard.

First remanded on 21.02.2020.

Statutory period lapsed.

Bail granted u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C.. subject to his

furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two

sureties of like amount and a cash deposit of Rs.

2,00,000/- which is refundable.

Remanded till 03.10.2020."

[11] Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19.09.2020

passed by the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur in

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |6

respect of direction to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in to the

Court, this instant criminal petition has been filed by the

petitioner.

[12] During the course of hearing, it has been submitted

by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the issue

involved herein has already been decided by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and this Court and in terms thereof, the instant

criminal petition can be allowed for modifying the order dated

19.09.2020 passed by the learned Special Court (ND&PS),

Manipur.

[13] Admittedly, the facts in (i) Cril. Petn. No. 28 of 2020,

Jangpao Haokip Vs. The State of Manipur & Anr. dated

21.12.2020 and (ii) Criminal Revision Petition No. 2020, Mr.

Jamkhomang Baite Vs. The State of Manipur dated

28.01.2021 are similar to that of the present case this Court vide

its judgment and order dated 21.12.2020 and 28.01.2020 held

that when the default bail/statutory bail is granted no condition

can be imposed by the Court in view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of

Police, Criminal Appeal No. 681-682 of 2020 held as follows :-

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |7

"9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and considering the scheme and the object and

purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion

that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing

condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default

bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed

such condition taking into a consideration the fact that earlier

at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before

the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an

affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/-. However, as

observed by this Court in catena of decisions and more

particularly in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), where

the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days,

as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or

90th day, accused gets an "indefeasible right" to default bail,

and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the

accused applies for default bail and furnish bail. Therefore,

the only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail

under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for

more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60

or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |8

completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day

and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to

furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged

amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition

while releasing the accused on default bail/ statutory bail

would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail

under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. As observed by this Court in

the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) and in other

decisions, the accused is entitled to default bail/statutory bail,

subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 167, Cr.P.C.,

namely, investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90

days as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th

or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is

prepared to furnish bail."

[14] While allowing the bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

directed that the police shall cooperate with the Investigating

Agency and shall report the concerned police station as and

when called for investigation/interrogation and non-cooperation

the consequences including cancellation of the bail shall follow.

[15] The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided only the

issue relating to the releasing of the accused on default

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 Page |9

bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. irrespective of the

nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the

accused. In other words, the provision of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

have been construed to mean that no other conditions of deposit

of alleged amount can be imposed. Hence, the decision rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thamisharasi (supra) does not

help the learned PP appearing for the respondents at all. Rather,

it has helped the case of the petitioner.

[16] Considering all these facts and the decisions

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saravanan Vs. State

represented by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No.

681-682 of 2020 and this Court in (i) Cril. Petn. No. 28 of 2020,

Jangpao Haokip Vs. The State of Manipur & Anr. dated

21.12.2020 and (ii) Criminal Revision Petition No. 2020, Mr.

Jamkhomang Baite Vs. The State of Manipur dated

28.01.2021 this issue in this criminal petition is entirely covered

and it can be safely held that the provisions of Section 167(2)

Cr.P.C. would apply to the accused arrested under the provision

of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated

19.09.2020 passed by the learned Special Court (ND&PS),

Manipur is partly quashed and set aside except the portion to the

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 10

extent that the petitioner is granted bail with the following

directions :-

(a) The petitioner shall be released on default bail provided

he is ready to furnish PR bond to the satisfaction of the Special

Judge, ND & PS, Manipur;

(b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating

agency and shall report the concerned police station as and

when called for investigation/ interrogation;

(c) On non-cooperation, the consequences including

cancellation of the bail shall follow, for which it is open to the

police to move appropriate application before the Special

Court, ND & PS, Manipur;

(d) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Manipur without

the leave of this Court.

[17] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both

the parties.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

Cril. Petition No. 11 of 2021