Smt. Phuritsabam Mukhra Devi vs The Officer-In-Charge
2022 Latest Caselaw 169 Mani

                                                                                Page |1
        Digitally
JOHN    signed by
        JOHN TELEN                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
TELEN   KOM
        Date:
                                                  AT IMPHAL

        2022.05.02
KOM     17:14:47                               AB No. 1 of 2022
        +05'30'
                        1.     Smt. Phuritsabam Mukhra Devi, aged about 45
                               years, W/o late Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh, a
                               resident of Awang Wabagai Makha Leikai, P.O. &
                               P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, PIN-795136.

                        2.     Shri Sagosem Bidyasagar Singh, aged about 21
                               years, S/O late Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh, a
                               resident of Awang Wabagai Makha Leikai, P.O. &
                               P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur, PIN-
                               795136.

                        3.     Shri Phuritsabam Shyamo Singh, aged about 65
                               years, S/O late Ph. Sagar Singh, a resident of
                               Awang Wabagai Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
                               Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur, PIN-
                               795136.

                        4.     Shri Chabungbam Baleshwor Singh, aged about
                               21 years, S/o Ch. Gyanneshwor Singh, a resident
                               of Awang Leikinthabi Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
                               Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur, PIN-
                               795136.
                                                                     ... Petitioners

                                          -Versus-




                     AB No. 1 of 2022
                                                                  Page |2



1. The Officer-in-Charge, Sekmai Police Station, Imphal
     West District, Manipur, PIN-795136.

                                                      .... Respondent

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

For the Petitioners :: Mr. M. Rakesh, Advocate For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, Addl. PP

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 12.04.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 02.05.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

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)

AB No. 1 of 2022 Page |3

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

AB No. 1 of 2022 Page |4

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. 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.

AB No. 1 of 2022 Page |5

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.

AB No. 1 of 2022 Page |6

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

AB No. 1 of 2022 Page |7

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. 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

AB No. 1 of 2022 Page |8

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

AB No. 1 of 2022 Page |9

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. In so far as the grant or refuse of the anticipatory bail,

the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs

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

AB No. 1 of 2022 P a g e | 10

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. 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;

AB No. 1 of 2022 P a g e | 11

(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 vs. 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

AB No. 1 of 2022 P a g e | 12

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. 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.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

AB No. 1 of 2022