Manipur High Court

Mr. Mark Thangmang Haokip @ Mark T ... vs The State Of Manipur on 2 November, 2022

SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
                      SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA                Date: 2022.11.04 16:51:39 +05'30'

                                                                             Page |1



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                    AT IMPHAL

                                   Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022

                 Mr. Mark Thangmang Haokip @ Mark T Haokip, aged
                 about 39 years, s/o Limkhosei Haokip of Molnom
                 Village, P.O., P.S. and district Churachandpur,
                 Manipur at present resident of 2nd Floor, House No.
                 42/9, Kishan Garh, New Delhi.
                                                                    ... Petitioner

                                            -Versus -

                 1.          The    State        of   Manipur,   represented     by
                             Commissioner/Secretary (Home), P.O. & P.S.
                             Imphal,    Imphal        West   District,   Pin    No.
                             795001,Manipur.

                 2.          The Officer-in-charge of Imphal Police Station
                             represented by its Officer-in-charge at Imphal,
                             Manipur.
                                                                   ...Respondents

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

For the Petitioner :: Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, Advocate For the Respondents :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, AG Mr. L. Somorendro Roy, Adv.

         Date of Hearing and
         reserving Judgment & Order ::                28.09.2022

         Date of Judgment & Order                ::   02.11.2022




Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022
                                                                        Page |2



                                  JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                                        (CAV)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with FIR Case

No.129(05)2022 under Sections 120-B/121/121-A/123/400 IPC

and Sections 17/18 of UA(P) Act on the file of Imphal Police

Station.

2. Brief facts are that on 30.5.2022, the complainant

Sanjeeva Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Imphal Police Station,

submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Imphal

Police Station stating that as per reliable information, the

petitioner, the President of an outfit organisation called

"Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Kukiland"

was involved in a conspiracy for secession from India and to

wage war or attempting to wage war or abetting wage war

against the Government of India along with three other officer

bearers, namely(i) KS Kipgen-Secretary (Admn); (ii)

LunkhohaoHaokip-Sectary (Political Affairs) and (iii) CSK Mate

(Press Secretary). The petitioner was also involved in spreading

propaganda in social media platform so as to create instability,

communal hatred, animosity, inciting violence, false

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 Page |3

propaganda etc., so as to achieve the organisational goal of

Government of Kukiland. The petitioner also owns a website

domain to propagate their ideas and hatch conspiracy against

the Government. Based on the complaint, the Imphal Police

Station registered an FIR No129(5)2022 under Sections 120-

B/121/121-A/123/400 IPC and Sections 17/18 of UA(P) Act

against the petitioner and took up the case for investigation by

the investigating officer.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been

wrongly implicated in this case and illegally detained in the

custody by the arresting authority. All the allegations are based

on bogus and cooked up story of investigating authority,

including the allegations that he is the President of an outfit

organisation called "Government of the People's Democratic

Republic of Kukiland", which hatched conspiracy to wage war

and conspired to secede from India. Sans the ingredients nor

the facts of attracting invocation of Sections in the FIR are prima

facie established further detention of the petitioner. Hence, the

petitioner has to be released on bail.

4. Objecting the bail petition, the Superintendent of

Police, Imphal West District, filed affidavit stating that the

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 Page |4

petitioner had admitted to have involved in conspiracy for

secession from the Union of India and the Government of

Manipur and to form a Government of the People's Democratic

Republic of Kukiland by means of waging war, attempting to

wage war and abetting to waging war against the lawfully

established Government. Because of his continuous

incriminating rants through social media posts on sensitive

issues, many law and order issues had been created. The

petitioner is using social media platform as propaganda to

achieve the goal to create instability, communal hatred,

animosity, inciting violence, false propaganda to breed hatred

and violence to achieve the organisational goal. The petitioner's

group is nothing but a gang waging war against the country and

organisation with the sole objective of secession from the Indian

State to establish their so called Kukiland. The petitioner found

to have involved in many criminal cases and lot of evidences

are available to establish that he had committed the offence

alleged in the instant FIR. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the

bail petition.

5. Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner was arrested

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 Page |5

at Delhi on 24.5.2022 by the personnel of Imphal Police Station

in connection with 3 FIRs registered under Sections 153A,

505(2) IPC and brought to Imphal by transit remand and that on

27.5.2022, the leaned Duty Magistrate released him on bail as

no case was made out against. Since the petitioner was not

able to furnish requisite bonds, he was sent to judicial custody.

On 30.5.2022, the petitioner was released from jail on furnishing

necessary bonds. While so, on the same day, the petitioner

was arrested in connection with the present FIR on the

allegation of certain facebook posts uploaded by him.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the

present FIR is registered with the sole motive to confine the

petitioner in custody even after his release by the Court. Multiple

FIRs have been registered against the petitioner for the same

post. In fact, in his post dated 21.8.2020, the petitioner clarified

that People's Democratic Republic of Kukiland [for short,

"PDRK"] was created to spread and clarify the Kuki community's

ideology and in his another post dated 14.2.2018, the petitioner

was against the idea of creating new militant group and

suggested to resort to politics and non-violence to realize their

hopes. These innocuous facebook posts do not fall within the

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 Page |6

meaning of any of the offences charged against him.Rather, it

is the protection by the fundamental right of free speech as

enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

7. The learned counsel urged that prima facie no

material available to made out the offence of waging war

against nation etc. All the FIRs, including the present FIR

registered against the petitioner are on fabricated grounds and

that accusing the petitioner for waging war against the nation

have been invoked with an ulterior motive to confine him after

his release in the earlier FIRs based on the concocted stories.

There are no materials for any of the offences charged against

the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that earlier

when the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge,

Imphal West for grant of bail in Cril. Misc. (B) No.60 of 2022, the

learned Judge dismissed the same on vague grounds and the

same is liable to be set aside. Thus, a prayer is made to grant

bail to the petitioner.

9. Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate

General assisted by Mr. L. Somorendro Roy, learned junior

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 Page |7

counsel to learned Advocate General submitted that the

petitioner was arrested on the serious allegations of waging war

against India and the same has been discovered by the

prosecution during the course of extensive investigation that he

has formed PDRK along with three persons and that he refuses

to identify the other persons of his group and that the

investigation is still in active progress to track the sources of

funding and expenditures of PDRK.

10. Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned Advocate General

further submitted that conspiracy for waging war against the

nation is clearly reflected from the website materials collected

from www.kukigovt.com and the entries of the diary seized from

the possession of the petitioner.

11. The learned Advocate General urged that the

petitioner is a famous social media influencer with a huge fan

following and used to upload offensive posts, which may cause

hatred and dissatisfaction between various groups. His arrest

evokes mass scale violent protests by his followers and

sympathizers. If he is released on bail, the petitioner is likely to

continue to post offensive posts on social medial and thus will

create hostile atmosphere amongst various communities on

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 Page |8

ethnic line. Taking into consideration the serious allegation of

waging war, the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the

bail petition of the petitioner and no need to interfere in it.

12. It is the submission of the learned Advocate

General that the investigation so far reveals that there is prima

facie evidence against the petitioner's involvement in

conspiracy of waging war, attempting to wage war, abetting to

wage war against the Government and raising funds for terrorist

acts to establish a Kuki Nation and that the petitioner and his

associates are working against the Government of India and the

Government of Manipur. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the

bail petition.

13. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

14. The petitioner was arrested on the allegation of his

involvement in conspiracy for secession from the Union of India

and the Government of Manipur and for forming a Government

of PDRK by means of levying war, attempting to wage war and

abetting to waging war against the lawfully established

Government, in defiance of the sovereign with an object to

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 Page |9

deliberate for an organised attack upon the Government of

India.

15. According to the prosecution, the petitioner

through his propaganda and instigation, mobilised people and

obstructed when people went for free plantation program at

Thangjing Hills. Because of his act, the matter was likely to be

converted into communal hatred/tension between Meitei and

Kuki communities in the State. Again in the Koubru incident

the petitioner instigated people and obstructed officers of Forest

Department, Art and Culture Department, Government of

Manipur from discharging their official duties. On 25.5.2022,

the members belonging to the petitioner's group launched a

violent protest against the Government of Manipur in the Kuki

dominated area in Churachandpur and Kangpokpi Districts

against the arrest of the petitioner by a team of Manipur Police

at Delhi. In this violent protest, three police personnel were

injured and some civilian are also injured. Such incident of

violent protest took place in Churachandpur as induced by his

associates and supporters.

16. According to the prosecution, the petitioner under

the disguise of a human rights activist has worked with a serious

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 P a g e | 10

intention and purpose to bring into hatred or contempt and

amplify it as an instrument to mobilise people against the State

with the aim of establishing a Kuki nation. In support, the

prosecution has produced certain messages posted by the

petitioner in the website, wherefrom, this Court finds that the

petitioner by creating a website www.kukigovt.com and

uploading various incriminating articles has a long standing

conspiracy to establish a Kukiland along with other office

bearers, all whom he has been concealing till now.

17. On a perusal of the materials, this Court finds the

following facebook message posted on 4.2.2020, wherein the

petitioner has stated as under:

" ... In Kuki, we have hopes and future, which we will flourish with the Mighty hand of God through His son. Jesus freedom and democracy. Before they forcefully make us worship their curved images we must strengthen ourselves in God to fight for our freedom or our descendants will face great troubles in the near future.

In Kuki, we have hopes and future, which we will flourish with a Mighty hand of God through His son Jesus Christ.

May God bless our great Kiki Nation."

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 P a g e | 11

18. The respondents have also produced a press

release of PDRK, wherein it has been stated as under:

"DRK will not accept and compromise anything that threatened the Sovereign rights and dignity of Kuki Nation."

19. That apart, in the material produced by the

respondents under the caption "KukiGovt", the following

facebook post of the petitioner found place:

"It is our highest solemn petition to the world to recognize the Democratic Republic of Kukiland and our determined aspirations to make it a pure Christian country."

20. The aforesaid posts prima facie prove that the

petitioner and his associates are working with a serious

intention to bring into hatred or contempt against other

communities and amplify it as an instrument to mobilise people

against the State and that they are using social media platform

as a medium of propaganda to achieve the goal to create

instability, communal hatred, animosity, inciting violence, false

propaganda to breed hatred and violence to achieve the

organisational goal i.e. PDRK comprising of different parts of

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 P a g e | 12

India, Bangladesh and Burma. Prima facie, it also proves that

the aforesaid group is nothing but a gang waging war against

the Indian nation with the sole objection of secession from the

Indian State to establish their so called Kukiland comprising of

different parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar and India.

21. The petitioner contended that the allegation of the

police or whomsoever concern by way of lodging report to

whichever police station are involving to the single issue of the

Hills and Valleys or the land the area vis-à-vis the history of

Manipur and these are all subject matter covered within the

Manipur State and the opinion so far given and uploaded in the

social media/facebook by the petitioner does not attract

Sections 120-B/121/121-A/123/400/468 IPC and Sections

17/18 of UA (P) Act and these issues are complex in nature and

can only be deliberated by the competent authority or a

historian. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be

accepted for the simple reason that prima facie evidences are

available against the petitioner to show that the petitioner and

his associates have been collecting and influencing people with

an intention of waging war against the Government of India and

the Government of Manipur which in itself an offence.

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 P a g e | 13

22. Social media is accessible to innumerable people

both in the country and worldwide and, thus, the petitioner's

influence in inciting hatred and communal animosity

undoubtedly reveal overt incitement to violence for the purpose

of establishing Kukiland.

23. War as contemplated in Section 121 and 121-A

IPC does not only mean conventional war and warfare. The

manner the petitioner collecting people and funds with a

suspected plan to eventually procure arms and ammunition to

achieve his ulterior motive i.e. Kukiland is a prima evidence of

his clear intention and purpose to wage war against the State in

his goal to establish Kukiland.

24. The prima facie evidence also proves that the

petitioner by building a website www.kukigovt.com has a long

standing conspiracy to establish a Kukiland along with other

office bearers and uploaded various incriminating articles in the

aforesaid website.

25. Earlier, when the petitioner approached the

learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West for grant of bail in Cril.

Misc. (B) Case No.60 of 2022, the learned Sessions Judge, by

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 P a g e | 14

the order dated 21.6.2022, dismissed the petition by observing

as under:

"6. From the materials on record including bail report and case diary, it is seen that the accused has been charged with serious offence of waging war against the nation. It is an admitted fact that he was released on bail in FIRs relating to facebook posts uploaded by the accused. It will be wrong to presume that the present FIR has arisen out of facebook posts. On perusal of case diary, there is prima facie materials for conspiracy to wage war against the nation, even though full-scale activities of recruiting volunteers, procuring arms and ammunition, etc. have not been reached. Nevertheless, there are instances of setting out ideologies, identifying enemies, identifying area to be covered under the new republic across neighbouring countries, etc. The investigation is at an early stage and many loose ends are to be tightened. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to release the accused on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 P a g e | 15

26. This Court finds no infirmity in the order of learned

Sessions Judge in rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner, as

the learned Sessions Judge having gone through the bail

objection report and the case diary has rightly rejected the bail

petition of the petitioner. No valid ground has been made out by

the petitioner to interfere with it.

27. The law is well settled that the totality of the

material gathered by the investigating agency and presented

along with the report and including the case diary is required to

be reckoned and not by analysing individual pieces of evidence

or circumstance. In any case, the question of discarding the

document at this stage, on the ground of being inadmissible in

evidence is not permissible. For, the issue of admissibility of

the document/evidence would be a matter for trial. The Court

must look at the contents of the document and take such

document into account as it is.

28. As could be seen from the materials produced by

the respondents, many incriminating documents/articles,

including one incriminating article titled "Feasibility on restoring

the sovereign Kukiland" were recovered from the possession of

the petitioner. That apart, the prosecution has also collected

Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022 P a g e | 16

Bank statements of the petitioner, wherefrom they found

multiple transactions from numerous accounts. According to

the respondents, the transactions are highly suspected to be

associated with terror funding and the investigating team is

putting in efforts to identify the accounts involved in the

transactions.

29. The petitioner himself admitted that apart from the

instant FIR case, he has also been charged with the following

FIRs:

(i) FIR No.17(02)2021 CCP-PS under

Section 153-A IPC.

(ii) FIR No.74(07)2021 CCP-PS under

Section 153-A/505(2) IPC.

(iii) FIR No.60(04)2021 IPS under Section

153-A/505(b)(2)/506/120-B IPC.

(iv) FIR No.108(07)2021 IPS under Section

153-A/505(b)(2)/506/120-B IPC.

(v) FIR No.205(11)2021 IPS under Section

153-A/505(2)/506/120-B IPC.




Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022
                                                                      P a g e | 17



                             (vi) FIR   No.150(5)2022    PRT-PS     under

                                 Section 203/ 295-A/ 419/ 500/ 504/ 505/

                                 506/120-B IPC.

30. The registration and pendency of the multiple FIRs

clearly proves that the petitioner is a notorious person involved

in many number of cases and therefore, releasing him in the

present FIR which was lodged levelling serious allegations

against him is not possible and also no valid ground has been

made out for his release in the present FIR. The registration of

multiple FIRs against the petitioner is not same set of facts and

allegations.

31. On a perusal of the decisions relied by upon by

learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of (i) Union of

India v. K.A.Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713; (ii) Thwaha Fasal v.

Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1000; (iii) Satender