Smt. Mayanglambam Prabha Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 480 Mani

SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
               SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA  Date: 2022.11.02 16:23:42 +05'30'
                                                                        Page |1



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                       AT IMPHAL

                                     AB No. 29 of 2022

                    Smt. Mayanglambam Prabha Devi, aged about 51 years,
                    W/o Shri M. Tomei Singh, a resident of Kakching Turel
                    Wangma, P.O. & P.S. & District Kakching, Manipur-
                    795103

                                          ......Applicant/Accused Person

                                              -Versus-

                    1.     The   State   of     Manipur   represented   by     the
                           Commissioner (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Old
                           Secretariat, 795001.

                    2.     The Officer-in-Charge, Kakching Police Station,
                           Kakching, Manipur-795103

                    3.     Mayanglambam Robin Singh, 42 years, S/o(late)
                           Mayanglambam Radhamohon Singh, a resident of
                           Kakching Khunyai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. & District
                           Kakching, Manipur -795103.

                                                            .....Respondents

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner :: Mr. Sh. Athoi, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate Mr. Y. Ashang, Addl. PP Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 27.09.2022

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |2

Date of Judgment & Order :: 02.11.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge her on bail in the event

of arrest by the personnel of Kakching Police Station in

connection with FIR No.101(11)2021 under Sections

413/420/471 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint

was filed by the younger brother of the petitioner before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal under Section 190

read with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation by stating

that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the patta of the

agricultural land having patta No.994(N), C.S. Dag No.242

measuring an area of 1.40 acre at Village No.59,

KakchingKhullen, Kakching Tehsil, Kakching District by using

the forged signature of the complainant. Pursuant to the

direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, an FIR

No.101(11)2021 was registered under Section 413/420/471

IPC by Kakching Police Station against the petitioner and the

case was taken up for investigation.

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |3

3. The case of the petitioner is that the complainant

has made allegations against the petitioner, according to his

choice and pursuant to the direction of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Thoubal, the respondent police registered the

instant FIR. Apprehending arrest in the hands of the personnel

of Kakching Police Station, the petitioner earlier approached the

learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal for anticipatory bail. Though

the learned Sessions Judge granted interim pre-arrest bail to

the petitioner initially, subsequently, the petition was dismissed

on 21.6.2022. After the dismissal of the anticipatory bail

petition, the petitioner apprehending arrest filed the present

petition.

4. Opposing the petition, the respondents filed

affidavit-in-opposition stating that during the course of

investigation, the investigating officer examined the

complainant and recorded his statement under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and had also sent requisition for furnishing related

documents from the competent authority of the Assistant

Survey Officer, Kakching Circle regarding mutation of case nos.

which has entered the petitioner's name in the place of the

complainant so as to ascertain the real fact of the case and the

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |4

competent authority has not furnished the documents till date.

It is stated that the petitioner is not co-operating with the

investigation and not revealing the truth and has not produced

any supporting documents like registration and mutation of the

land in question. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Mr. Sh. Athoi, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that based on the false allegation, an FIR has been

registered by the Kakching Police Station against the petitioner.

In fact, the petitioner is a pattadar of the agricultural land

bearing C.S. Dag No.242 measuring an extent of 1.04 acre and

the complainant has no right over the said property. The

petitioner alone was in possession and enjoyment of the said

land by growing paddy and other seasonal crops from time to

time.

6. The learned counsel would submit that since the

issue involved between the petitioner and the complainant

pertains to ownership of the piece of agricultural land, if the

complainant is aggrieved by the order passed by the authority

concerned of the Directorate of Settlement and Land Record,

he has the remedy of filing revenue appeal before the

competent appellate authority as per the provisions of the

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |5

Manipur Land Revenue and Land Records Act, 1960. Thus,

the complainant has the remedy under the provisions of the said

Act for ventilating his grievances. In such circumstances, the

criminal court has no role to play.

7. The learned counsel urged that certain procedures

have to be followed while recording the name of a person in

respect of land property as provided under the relevant

provisions of law. In the State of Manipur in respect of surveyed

land the same is governed by the Manipur Land Revenue and

Land Reform Act, 1960 as well as the provisions of the Indian

Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal could have

straightaway rejected the complaint by asking the complainant

for approaching the appropriate forum. Thus, the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate is the creator of the present issue for

passing the order dated 21.6.2022 in Crl. Misc. (AB) Case o.107

of 2021 in connection with FIR No.101(11)2021 KCG PS under

Section 413/420/471 IPC. If this Court does not come to protect

the petitioner, who is an innocent lady and also an employee

(adhoc) of the Department of Education(S), Government of

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |6

Manipur, her regularization will grossly be affected. Further, if

the police personnel arrested the petitioner in connection with

the FIR, she will suffer an irreparable loss and injury, which

cannot be compensated in other terms and lot of problems will

be created in her service career without any misconduct on her

part.

9. Arguing so, the learned counsel submitted that the

issue in question is civil/revenue matter and the criminal court,

including Kakching Police Station, has no role to play.

Moreover, there is no sustainable evidence to establish prima

facie case for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Thus, a prayer

is made to grant anticipatory bail.

10. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor submitted that the findings of the

investigating authority is that the petitioner is not co-operating

the investigation and she also failed to disclose the truth,

thereby concealing the real facts and could not produce any

supporting documents like registration and mutation of the land

in question. Further, the petitioner is reluctant to disclose the

particulars of the other persons who helped in committing the

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |7

offence/charge levelled against her which is highly required in

the present case.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

submitted that despite appearing before the investigating

officer, the petitioner did not tell truth, however, concealed all

the facts to cover up the crime committed by the petitioner. The

smooth and fair investigation could not be done without

custodial interrogation. Hence, her custodial interrogation is

highly required.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor next

submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected

the anticipatory bail considering the nature and gravity of

offences alleged against the petitioner. Thus, a prayer is made

to dismiss the petition.

13. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

14. Before going to consider the merits of the petition

for anticipatory bail, it is to be noted that the petitioner arrayed

the State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner

(Home), Government of Manipur and the Officer-in-Charge,

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |8

Kakching Police Station, Kakching District Manipur as

respondents 1 and 2 and later on the complainant was added

as respondent No.3.

15. The present FIR has been registered by the

Kakching Police Station pursuant to the direction of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal. In a petition for grant of

anticipatory bail, the State and the Superintendent of Police

concerned are not required to be arrayed as parties. In fact, the

State, represented by the concerned Department of the

Government of Manipur and the concerned Superintendent of

Police are unnecessary parties to the petition for anticipatory

bail. On the other hand, for proper adjudication of the petition

for anticipatory bail, if the complainant is impleaded as party

respondent, particularly when the offences alleged against the

accused involved under Sections 413/420/471 IPC, it would be

useful for the Court to go through the contents of the complaint

and accordingly to deal with the petition for anticipatory bail.

16. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to

enclose a copy of the complaint along with the petition. She

only enclosed a copy of first page of the FIR. The petitioner is

bound to enclose the copy of the complaint filed before the

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 Page |9

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as she is aware of the

complaint.

17. The grounds for seeking anticipatory bail should

be examined by the High Court or Court of Sessions, which deal

with the petition for anticipatory bail on going through the

allegations levelled in the complaint against the accused. Filing

of FIR though is not a condition precedent for exercising power

under Section 438 Cr.P.C., to know the contents in the FIR and

the complaint, both the complaint and the FIR are required to

be annexed to the petition for anticipatory bail for proper

adjudication of the petition. Mere averments set out in the

petition are not enough for considering the petition for

anticipatory bail. A readable copy of the complaint and the FIR

ought to have been annexed to the petition for anticipatory bail

so as to enable the Court to deal with the petition based on the

allegations set out in the complaint and the FIR.

18. The Court must be satisfied that the accused

invoking the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. has reason to

believe that he/she is likely to be arrested for a non-bailable

offence and that belief must be founded on reasonable grounds.

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 10

19. Mere "fear" is not belief, for which reason, it is not

enough for the accused to show that he/she has some sort of

vague apprehension that someone is going to make an

accusation against him/her, in pursuance of which he/she may

be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the accused is

based that he/she may be arrested for a non-bailable offence,

must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively.

Specific events and facts must be disclosed by the petitioner in

order to enable the Court to judge the reasonableness of her

belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise

of power conferred by Section 438 Cr.P.C.

20. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the

petitioner has not even mentioned the FIR number in the prayer

portion, for which she is seeking anticipatory bail.

21. Coming to the merits of the petition for anticipatory

bail filed by the petitioner, the petitioner claimed that she is the

pattadar of the land measuring an extent of 1.40 acres covered

by C.S. Dag No.282 situated at Revenue Village No.59-

Kakching Khullen, Kakching District, Manipur. On the other

hand, it is the say of the respondents is that during the life time

of the father of the complainant, he bought the said agricultural

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 11

land from one Naorem Nopur Singh with the help of his father.

Thereafter, the name of the complainant was mutated in the

records of right vide Mut. Case No.543/ASSO/K dated

26.11.2009 and the petitioner who is the elder sister of the

complainant was also aware of the said mutation of the

complainant in the records of right of the agricultural land.

22. According to the respondents, the complainant

was working as Manager in Canara Bank and most of the time,

he was moving from place to place because of his posting. It is

stated that he was posted outside the State like Assam and

Mizoram etc.

23. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged

that when the complainant was posted at Porompat Branch, he

had checked the land records of the said agricultural land and

he came to know that behind his back, the petitioner has

entered her name in the rights and title of the agricultural land

after cancelling the name of the complainant from the land

records.

24. Thus, the allegation against the petitioner is that

she committed forgery of a document which is to be used in

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 12

transferring an immovable property, though her case is of a

complete denial. Though the petitioner claimed that she is the

lawful owner of the land measuring an extent of 1.40 acres

covered by C.S. Dag No.242, the petitioner has not produced

any relevant documents to support her claim either before the

investigating officer or before this Court.

25. Earlier, when the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (AB)

Case No.107 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge,

Thoubal for anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions Judge, by

the order dated 23.11.2021, granted interim pre-arrest bail to

the petitioner with certain conditions, in which one of the

condition is that the petitioner shall co-operate with the

investigation. According to the respondents, the petitioner is

not co-operating in the investigation. Finally, when the petition

was taken up for hearing on 21.6.2022, the learned Sessions

Judge rejected the petition by observing as under:

"Accordingly, the IO of the case submitted its objection report stating inter alia that even though the petitioner claimed that she is the lawful owner of the said land. She could not produce any relevant documents to support her claim and that she is not co-

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 13

operating in the investigation and that the smooth and fair investigation could not be done without custodial interrogation. The IO has thus, prayed for rejecting the application of the petitioner.

I have also heard the ld. Addl. PP as well as the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have perused and considered the materials on record in the light of the submissions made.

The allegations against the petitioner is that she committed forgery of a document which is to be used in transferring an immovable property, though her case is of complete denial. Therefore, so as to ascertain whether the offences have been committed by her or not, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, I am of the view that the interim orders dated 23.11.2021 needs to be set aside.

Hence, interim orders dated 23/11/2021 is set aside.

Anticipatory bail to the petitioner Prava is denied."

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 14

26. The complainant has filed his objection to the

petition stating that the name of the petitioner has been entered

in the land record of the said land by forging documents and

signatures which is under investigation. In the bail objection

report filed by the Officer-in-Charge of Kakching Police Station

before the learned Sessions Judge, it has been stated that he

has also sent a requisition for furnishing the related document

from the competent authority, namely the Assistant Survey

officer, Kakching Circle regarding Mutation Case nos., which

has entered the petitioner's name from the complainant, so as

to ascertain real facts of the case. It is stated that so far, the

competent authority has not furnished the related documents of

the case. Since serious allegation of forgery has been levelled

against the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly

rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. This Court finds no

infirmity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

27. On overall analysis of the materials produced by

both sides, this Court is of the view that in order to ascertain

whether the offences have been really committed by the

petitioner or not and to find out the true facts, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is very much required.

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 15

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence levelled

against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that granting

anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is not co-operating with

the investigation, is inappropriate.

28. In so far as the grant or refusal of the anticipatory

bail, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetrev. State of Maharashtra and others,

(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

imprisonment on conviction by a Court

in respect of any cognizable offence;

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 16

(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

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 17

over implication in the cases is a matter

of common knowledge and concern;

(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

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 18

events, the accused is entitled to an

order of bail."

29. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4

SCC 379, the Hon'ble Apex Court elucidated the principles for

consideration of grant 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 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)."

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 19

30. An anticipatory bail can be granted only in

exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the

view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime

and would not misuse his liberty. Here, it is a case where prima

facie case of the involvement of the petitioner in the crime has

been established by the prosecution and no contra proof has

been produced by the petitioner. Evaluating the entire materials

produced by the parties, this Court is of the view that this is not

a case falling under the exceptional circumstances. Therefore,

the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief prayed for by her

and, accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the

petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

31. Having considered the given facts and

circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the parameters

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited

above and also the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the

view that the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail in

this case.

32. In the result, the anticipatory bail application is

dismissed. The following directions are issued to the Registry

for strict compliance:

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 20

(a) The Registry should ensure that petition

for anticipatory bail or regular bail should

be appended with legible copies of

complaint and the FIR registered against

petitioner/accused. If the petitioner/

accused fails to enclose copies of the

complaint and the FIR, the Registry should

return the petition and only after due

compliance, the petition should be

numbered.

(b) In all anticipatory bail, the complainant

should be made as party respondent for

proper adjudication of the petition.

                 (c)         The array of unnecessary respondents

                             like   the    State,         represented       by

                             Commissioner/Secretary                  (Home),

                             Secretary      to       the          Government

Departments, Superintendents of Police

and Deputy Superintendents of Police are

to be avoided in the Anticipatory bail

application and the Registry should not

entertain the said applications.

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022 P a g e | 21

(d) The Registry should ensure array of the

Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police

Station/Investigating Authority and the

complainant as parties to the petition for

anticipatory bail and bail.

(e) The Registry is directed to strictly comply

the above directions without any excuse.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

Bail Appln. No. 29 of 2022