Manipur High Court

Mayanglambamtolenjao Singh Aged ... vs The State Of Manipur on 27 September, 2021

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
    LHAINEI Digitally
            by
                      signed


    CHONG HAOKIP
            LHAINEICHONG
                                         AT IMPHAL
            Date: 2021.09.27
    HAOKIP 13:41:36 +05'30'
                                     Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021
     MayanglambamTolenjao Singh aged about 55 years, S/o (L) M.
     Konungjao Singha of Bamol Leikai, P.S. Lala & P.O. Madaripar,
     Heilakandi Dist. Assam, A/P Lamboikhongnangkhong Veterinary Leikai,
     Imphal West.
                                                                      ..... Petitioner/s
                                            -Versus -

     1.        The State of Manipur, represented by Secretary (Home), P.O. &
               P.S. Imphal, Imphal West - 795001.
     2.        Officer-in-Charge, Singjamei Police Station, Imphal West, Manipur-
               795008.
                                                                     ... Respondent/s
                                                WITH
                                        Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021
     Narengbam Biswajit Singh aged about 55 years, S/o (L) N.
     Jogendrakumar Singh of Sagolband Tera Loukrakpam Leikai, I/W, P.O.
     Imphal and P.S. Lamphel, Manipur.
                                                                       ... Petitioner/s
                                            -Versus -

     1.        The State of Manipur, represented by Secretary (Home), P.O & P.S.
               Imphal, Imphal West-795001.
     2.        Officer-in-Charge, Singjamei Police Station, Imphal West, Manipur-
               795008.
                                                                     ... Respondent/s
                                 B E F O R E
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

              For the Petitioners       : Mr. M. Gunedhor, Advocate.
              For the respondents       : Mr. Y. Ashang, PP.
              Date of Hearing           : 13.07.2021,15.07.2021 & 18.08.2021.
              Date of Order             : 27.09.2021.




Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021.                       Page 1
                                         ORDER

(A. Bimol, J)

Heard Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Public Prosecutor (PP) appearing

for the respondents.

[2] The present applications have been filed by the petitioners with a

prayer for granting bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 57(3) 2021 SJM PS

u/s 124-A/153 A (b)/353/505 (1) (b)/34 IPC. As both the petitioners have

been arrested in connection with the same F.I.R. and as the facts of the

present cases are the same, the present bail applications are being

disposed of by this common order.

[3] The facts of the present bail applications in a nutshell is that on

29.03.2021 at 2:30 PM, the Police received an information that one

NarengbamSamarjit Singh, who is accused of committing seditious

activities against the Government, arrived at the Imphal Airport along with

N.I.A. Officials on the same day at around 2:10 PM. As soon as the said

accused person was taken outside the exit gate of the Airport building, the

supporters of the said accused person numbering around 20/30, who were

concealing among other people in the visitors' waiting lounge, stormed

towards the said accused person shouting slogans in support of the

seditious activities of the accused person N. Samarjit Singh and that they

Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021. Page 2 also shouted seditious slogan inciting general public with the intent to

cause fear or alarm to the public inducing them to commit offence against

the State, which is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. It was also alleged

that the supporters of N. Samarjit Singh chased the police personnel who

were escorting the accused person and tried to snatch the accused person,

thereby obstructing the police personnel from discharging their duty. It was

further alleged that the police team diverted the said accused person and

put the crowd away by putting barricadesand the accused was evacuated

to a safe place swiftly. On the basis of the said information, a Suo-moto

case under F.I.R. No. 57(3) 2021 SJM PS u/s 124-A/153 A (b)/353/505 (1)

(b)/34 IPC was registered for investigation.

Both the petitioners were arrested on 30.03.2021 in

connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. and they have been under custody

since then.

[4] Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that one of the petitioners, viz., M. Tolenjao Singh is the General

Secretary of NEIDP, a political party, was deputed by the Central Working

Committee of NEIDP to receive N. Samarjit Singh at the Airport. It has also

been submitted that the other petitioner, viz., N. Biswajit Singh is the elder

brother of Shri N. Samarjit Singh and he was present at the Airport along

with his family members to receive his younger brother at the Airport. The

learned counsel further submitted that both the petitioners are absolutely

Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021. Page 3 innocent and have not committed any offence alleged against them in the

F.I.R. and they have been arrested on false and concocted charges.

[5] It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the police have maliciously added the allegations under section 124-A of

the IPC and sought to sensationalize the allegations by way of invoking

phrases such as "shouting anti-national slogans" and "secession

movement" only with a view to cause tremendous prejudice to the personal

liberty of the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that as per the

case of the prosecution, the slogans shouted at the Airport are "Samarjit

Na Yaiphare", "Long Live Samarjit" and "Kangleipak Na Yaiphare" and that

shouting of such slogans incited the general public with the intent to cause

fear or alarm and to induce the public to commit offence against the State,

which is likely to disturb the public tranquillity and that by shouting the said

slogans, the petitioners openly supported N. Samarjit Singh, who publicly

declared independence of the State of Manipur, which amounts to severe

threats to internal security likely to disturb the tranquillity and cause serious

issues of law and order and misled other passengers present at the Airport

and incited anti-government feelings.

It has also been submitted that there was no allegations that

the petitioners ever incited rebellion or a call to arms or violence to create

disaffection and to overthrow the government.

Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021. Page 4 [6] The learned counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the

contains of the police report will prima facie confirm that no offence under

section 124-A of the IPC is made out against the petitioners and that the

alleged shouting of the slogans "Long Live Samarjit" and "Long Live

Kangleipak" are not even remotely seditious words and such slogans are

squarely within the realm of protected freedom of speech and expression

guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. It has also

been submitted that the relatives and friends of the accused N. Samarjit

Singh were merely expressing their happiness and joy while welcoming a

friend to home and that there is no allegation of violence at the spot or

thereafter, after the alleged shouting of the slogans.

[7] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the police have maliciously added the allegations under section 124-A

of the IPC without any basis and that on a close reading of the provisions

of section 124-A of the IPC, it is apparent that the offence is not only

punishable with life imprisonment but also for a term of up to three years

imprisonment or even with fine alone. The learned counsel accordingly,

submitted that all the cases under section 124-A IPC cannot be treated

alike and that the facts of the present case makes it apparent that no

offence has been committed by the petitioners and that even assuming that

the allegations against the petitioners are true, it only involves the alleged

commission of minor offences and not those of a grave nature. It has been

Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021. Page 5 submitted that the petitioners have never committed any offences to attract

the provisions of the various sections of the IPC as mentioned in the F.I.R.

and that they are entitled to get bail. In support of his contentions, the

learned counsel relied on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the

case of "Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported in (1995) 3 SCC

214 (Paras 8, 9, 12 & 13) and in the case of "Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs.

State of A.P." reported in (1997) 7 SCC 431 (Paras 6, 9-12).

[8] Mr. Yangya, learned PP submitted that the prosecution categorically

denied the allegations that the police have falsely implicated the petitioners

in the case and cause their arrest on the basis of fabricated, concocted

allegations and without any basis. It has been submitted that the present

petitioners along with other co-accused were arrested in connection with

the present F.I.R. case for the offences alleged to have committed by them

and such allegations is corroborated by the CCTV footage and Video

uploaded in social media and that prima facie case has been made out

against the petitioners for their arrest and detention. The learned PP further

submitted that whether the ingredients of offences charged against the

petitioners are made out or not can only be determined at the stage of

charge framing and not at the initial stage of investigation.

[9] It is also submitted by the learned PP that the status of the case is at

the initial stage of investigation and if the petitioners are released on bail at

this stage, there is every likelihood of influencing the prosecution witnesses

Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021. Page 6 by the petitioners, which will definitely hamper the process of investigation.

Accordingly, the learned PP prayed for rejecting the present bail

applications.

[10] In para 11 of the bail objection report filed by the respondents along

with their bail objection affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that from the CCTV

footage collected from the Airport and Video footage uploaded in the social

media, eight persons name therein were directly involved in shouting

seditious words against the government, committing an act which disturbs

the public tranquillity, obstructing the police personnel on discharging their

duties and statements conducting to public mischief with common intention.

Among the said eight accused persons, the names of the petitioners were

not included and as such, it cannot be said that there is prima facie case

that the present petitioners were directly involved in committing offence

alleged in the F.I.R. From the perusal of the said bail objection report as

well as the records of the present cases, it is also ascertained that all the

other accused arrested in connection with the present F.I.R. have been

released on bail.

[11] It is also found on record that the National Investigation Agency

(NIA) has also dropped the charges of sedition against N. Samarjit Singh,

the prime accused, while filing charge sheet before the Special Court. In

view of the above, it can hardly be said that prima facie case had been

Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021. Page 7 made out against the present petitioners of their supporting the said N.

Samarjit Singh in committing seditious activities against the government.

[12] On examination of the case diary submitted before this Court, it is

found that no further investigation had been carried out by the police in

connection with the present F.I.R. after 12.04.2021 and as such, this Court

found force in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that trial

of the present case is not likely to commence soon and it will take a long

time in completing the trial, in case if such trials commence at all in the

near future and that it will be very unfair and will cause great hardship to

the petitioners if they are denied bail and made to suffer detention in Jail for

an indefinite period, pending completion of the trial.

In the case of "Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI" reported in (2012) 1

SCC 40, it has been held, inter-alia, by the Apex Court as under:-

"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.

"22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity"

is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he

Bail Appln. No. 18 of 2021With Bail Appln. No. 19 of 2021. Page 8 should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

"23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

[13] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after

perusal of the records and also for the findings and reasons given

hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are

entitled to be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:-

(i) the petitioners should be released on bail on their

executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only)

each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned

Sessions Judge, Imphal West, Manipur;