Ngangom Somorendro Singh vs Officer-In-Charge
2022 Latest Caselaw 469 Mani

SHAMURAILATPAM                      Digitally signed by
                                    SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA                       Date: 2022.10.19 16:22:23 +05'30'
                                                                          Page |1



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                       AT IMPHAL

                                 Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022


                  Ngangom Somorendro Singh, aged about 38 years,
                  S/o Ngangom Modhumangol, resident of Takhel
                  Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East
                  District, Manipur.
                                                                    ........Petitioner
                                               -Versus-

                  Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station, Tegnoupal
                  District, Manipur.

                                                           ........ Respondent

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

For the Petitioner :: Mr. L. Sevananda, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, Addl. PP

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 06.09.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 19.10.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in connection with

FIR No.32(6)2022 under Section 22(c)/60(3)/29 of Narcotic

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |2

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short,

"NDPS Act"] on the file of Moreh Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.6.2022

at about 9.00 p.m., one RG Gurung of 20 Assam Rifles (JC-

2002503 Nb/Sub) reported to the Officer-in-Charge of Moreh

Police Station that on the same day at about 17.00 hours, while

carrying out routine checking at PVCP Khudengthabi, a grey

colour EECO van bearing registration No.MN01-AS-0772

driven by one Maibam Jateshor Singh was checked. On

checking, he found 5 packages (50,000 tablets) of suspected

WY tablets were found concealing inside detergent containers

being transported in the van. On enquiry, it was revealed that

the stores belong to the vehicle driver and his associates and

the suspected tablets were being ferried from Moreh to Imphal.

Based on the said report, FIR No.32(6)2022 under Section

22(c)/60(3)/29 of NDPS Act was registered by Moreh Police

Station against the petitioner and Maibam Jateshor Singh and

took up the case for investigation.

3. Mr. L. Sevananda, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this

case and in fact, the petitioner is running a small time business

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |3

as a transporter, transporting goods and items by plying aEeco

van from Imphal to Moreh and Moreh to Imphal on day-to-day

basis on being hired by customers. He would submit that the

alleged seizure of psychotropic substances was not from the

direct possession of the petitioner and that the only

incriminating allegation charged against the petitioner is he has

contacted the co-accused Maiibam Jateshore for picking up a

lady passenger with some belongings, including some grocery

items as the said co-accused also running transport business

by plying an EECO van on Imphal-Moreh and Moreh-Imphal

route.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner did not have any conscious knowledge of the contents

in those boxes which were loaded in the vehicle of the co-

accused Maibam Jateshore Singh and he was under the

simplistic impression of the items loaded in the vehicle of the

co-accused to be ordinary items and hence, there was neither

any conscious possession, nor malicious intention to make the

co-accused to transport any contraband/psychotropic

substances.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |4

5. The learned counsel then submitted that one Md.

Makakmayum Rahish has hired the service of the petitioner to

transport some ordinary/grocery items on his behalf from Moreh

to Imphal. In fact, in the remand report dated 27.6.2022

submitted before the Court by the investigating officer has

neither mentioned of any evidential material in the course of

investigation to bind the petitioner for conspiracy and abetment

to attract the commission of offences under the relevant

provisions of NDPS Act, nor was the petitioner found to have

been in direct possession of the seized substances and that the

seized items were not found in the vehicle of the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner in good faith has informed Md. Makakmayum Rahish

that his vehicle which was meant for carrying the seized items

was filled with the belongings of passengers which itself shows

the unconscious knowledge of the nature of articles loaded in

the vehicle of the co-accused Maibam Jateshore Singh. The

petitioner would not have driven his vehicle following the other

vehicle driven by the co-accused, if in case he has the prior or

conscious knowledge of the articles loaded and carried to be of

psychotropic substances.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |5

7. The learned counsel urged that no incriminating

evidence could be reasonably established against the

petitioner, except the fact that the he has been conducting the

business of transporting ordinary goods and passengers by

plying in the route of Imphal-Moreh and Moreh-Imphal to earn

his livelihood.

8. The learned counsel next submitted that earlier

the petitioner filed bail application before the learned Special

Judge (ND&PS) Manipur and by the order dated 15.7.2022, the

said petition was dismissed holding that there are reasonable

grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the

offences alleged against him. According to the learned counsel

such a finding of the learned Special Judge is not supported by

any material evidence and that the learned Special Judge erred

in observing so.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was arrested on 17.6.2022 by the personnel

of Moreh Police Station by reason of which thorough

interrogation must have been conducted by the investigating

officer of the case to extract as much evidence as required for

establishing the case and thereafter has been remanded to

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |6

judicial custody by an order dated 27.6.2022 and that so far no

incrimination evidence of slightest nature could be adduced to

implicate the petitioner under Section 22(c) nor any evidence to

induce him under Section 29 or Section 60(3) have surfaced

and, as such, the further detention of the petitioner shall not

serve in the interest of justice. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge

the petitioner on bail.

10. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of

investigation, the investigating officer examined the

complainant and witnesses, who fully corroborated with each

other and the investigating officer has also seized the materials.

When the petitioner and co-accused were interrogated, they

admitted to have committed the crime. He would submit that

the Eeco van bearing registration No.MN01-AS-1683 which

was driven by the petitioner was also seized in connection with

the present FIR.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted

that during police custody, the co-accused Maibam Jateshor

Singh stated that he started money lending business with the

street vendors at Bir Tikendrajit Road market and collecting

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |7

money day-to-day and due to Covid-19, he quit from the above

mentioned activities and remained home and that Covid-19, he

took one Eeco van and started running his business in the

Maruti Eeco van. On 17.6.2022 at around 8.00 a.m., when he

went to Moreh to buy eggs for Miss. Luxmi of Dewlahland near

Tiny Tor's School by is Maruti van along with three lady

passengers and one male passenger from Moirangkhom Moreh

parking. After he parked his vehicle, he went to one rice hotel

to have lunch and then be came to his vehicle and waited for

passengers. At that time on lady passenger namely Namdailing

of KhumanLapak told him to bring some Mangoes from godown

of David at Moreh gate before leaving Moreh.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then

submitted that at around 12.00 p.m. on 17.6.2022, the accused

Maibam Jateshor Singh went to the godown of David to load

mangoes. Later when the accused drove his vehicle near

Moreh police station, the petitioner called the accused Maibam

Jateshor through his mobile telling him that he can carry some

grocery items in his Eeco van. At around 3.30 p.m, again the

petitioner called the co-accused to come in front of Deepa Hotel

for loading some galaman items. Accordingly, accused Maibam

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |8

Jateshor Singh went to the said place along with lady

passenger. There he found the petitioner, who gave him 4

numbers of plastic buckets containing detergent boxes which

were packing in a black plastic polythene and he kept the said

items in the middle seat of his vehicle.

13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then

submitted that a team of 20 AR personnel while doing vehicle

checking at Khudengthabi check post, they stopped the vehicle

of Maibam Jateshor Singhand started checking Maruti Eeco

van and during their checking they opened the detergent boxes

and found WY tablets. While 20 AR personnel asked about the

owner of the detergent boxes to him, the accused Maibam

Jateshor Singh told to the AR personnel that the detergent

boxes containing contraband drugs were handed over to him by

one of his Eeco driver, namely Ngangom Somorendro Singh.

At that time Ngangom Somorendro Singh also reached the

check post and his vehicle was also checked and 20 AR

personnel apprehended both of them and detained them there.

14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged

that the detergent buckets/bottles containing suspected to be

WY tablets were given by the petitioner and that according to

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 Page |9

the petitioner, the detergent buckets containing suspected WY

tablets were given by Md. Makakmayum Rahish @ Jamad of

Lilong Yangbi Makha Leikai. Thus, there is conspiracy between

the Maibam Jateshor, Ngangom Somorendro Singh (petitioner

herein) and Md. Makakmayum Rahish @ Jamad to commit the

offence and the respondent police are made since efforts to nab

the accused Md. Makakmayum Rahish by sending special

team. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a chance of

tampering with the witnesses and evidence related with the

instant case and therefore the learned Special Judge rightly

dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. Thus, a prayer

is made to dismiss this bail application.

15. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

16. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is

innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

According to the petitioner, he and another co-accused Maibam

Jateshore Singh were arrested on 17.6.2022 by the personnel

of 20Assam Rifles and the contraband substances were

recovered from the possession of Maibam Jateshore Singh,

who was granted bail by the learned Special Judge on 8.7.2022

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 10

on the ground of having no conscious possession, though

physically recovered from his possession of the said

contraband substances.

17. Admittedly, the instant FIR has been registered

against the petitioner and Maibam Jateshor Singh. The

petitioner is the second accused. The offence alleged against

them is unauthorized possession of contraband drugs. The

very registration of FIR is based on the report of the Nb/Sub of

20 Assam Rifles, namely RB Gurung, who has stated that on

17.6.2022 at around 17.00 hours, while carrying out routine

checking at PVCP Khudengthabi, a grey colour EECO van

(No.MN01-AS-0772) being driven by one Maibam Jateshor

Singh was checked. On a thorough checking, 5 packages of

suspected WY tablets were found concealed inside detergent

containers (rainbow) being transported in the vehicle. On

enquiry, the packages belong to the vehicle driver and his

associates and the suspected WY tablets were being ferried

from Moreh to Imphal. Thus, the report of the

complainant/informant clearly shows that accused Maibam

Jateshor Singh has not specifically stated the name of the

petitioner, however, the team arrested Maibam Jateshor Singh

and the petitioner in this case.

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

18. In the present case, the alleged seizure of

psychotropic substances was not from the direct possession of

the petitioner, but from the possession and vehicle of the co-

accused Maibam Jateshor Singh and the prima facie material

reveals that the petitioner only contacted Maibam Jateshor

Singh to pick up a lady passenger with some belongings,

including some grocery items as Maibam Jateshor Singh also

running the transport business by plying Eeco van on Moreh-

Imphal route.

19. The co-accused Maibam Jateshor Singh has filed

bail application being Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.179 of 2022 before

the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Manipur, Imphal and by the

order dated 8.7.2022, the learned Special Judge granted bail to

him. While granting bail, the learned Special Judge observed

as under:

"... The whole transaction leading to the loading of the goods in his vehicle rather supports the claim of the petitioner of absence of knowledge of the contents of the said package. In the absence of the knowledge of the contents of the packages, even though the said packages are in his vehicle, the accused cannot be assigned

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 12

with conscious possession of the said contents of the packages. Not mere physical possession but consciousness of what is physically possessed is required to constitute legal possession of S.35 and 54 of the Act. Situated this, I am inclined to accept the submission of lack of knowledge of the petitioner of the contents of the packages when it was loaded in his vehicle till it was recovered in the checking resulting in the case.

In the result, I am of the opinion as regard this accused person, the necessary conditions under S.37 ND&PS Act of reasonable ground to believe the accused is innocent of the offence charged, is thus, made out. Further, with nothing on records to show accused as having any criminal antecedents or of any past records of drugs dealing etc., I am also of the opinion he is not likely to commit similar offence if released on bail."

20. On a perusal of the said order, while granting bail,

the learned Special Judge has not recorded the submission, if

any, of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the order of

learned Special Judge noted only the presence of Special

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 13

Public Prosecutor. The infirmities of the learned Special Public

Prosecutor not opposing the bail application of the accused

Maibam Jateshor Singh is very much support the case of the

petitioner herein, as in the remand report dated 8.7.2022, the

ASI of Moreh Police Station stated that during the police

custody period, accused Maibam Jateshor Singh revealed that

the detergent buckets/bottles containing suspected to be WY

tablets were given by the petitioner. Again the petitioner also

revealed that the detergent buckets/bottles containing

suspected to be WY tablets were given by Md. Makakmayum

Rahish @ Jamad of Lilong and there will be conspiracy between

the two accused persons, as they were also making friends

since 2/3 years. This has been recorded by the learned Special

Judge, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner

being Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.187 of 2022 dated 15.7.2022.

When the report of the ASI of Moreh Police Station is to the

effect that Md. Makakmayum Rahish also involved in the

alleged crime, no efforts have been made by the respondent

police till date to arrest him.

21. However, when the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (B)

Case No.187 of 2022, the learned Special Judge, by the order

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 14

dated 15.7.2022, while dismissing the bail application, observed

as under:

"6. ... So from the material on record, it appears that the lady passenger whom the present petitioner asked the co-accused (Jateshor) to carry was not any random passenger waiting for taxi. The police are waiting for the report of the experts from Forensic Science Laboratory, Pangei and had also requisitioned the SDRs and CDRs records through SP - Tengnoupal, but not reply is yet to be received. Efforts are also being made to nab the mentioned accused person namely Md. MakakmayumRashish @ Jamad by sending special source, whom if arrested will further throw light in the case.

7. After hearing the submission of both sides and also perusing the materials on record, I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, as such, I am therefore inclined to reject his application."

22. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the evidence collected so far by the investigating officer of

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 15

the instant case correlating to the statement made by the

petitioner in comparison to the co-accused Maibam Jateshore

who enlarged already on bail stands on the same footing as the

petitioner herein did not possess any conscious knowledge of

article to be loaded by the co-accused Maibam Jateshore in his

vehicle and the said statement of facts are being exhibited in

the remand application dated 27.6.2022 submitted by the

investigating officer before the Court. He further submitted that

the investigating officer in the bail objection report dated

8.7.2022 submitted before the learned Special Court in respect

of the bail application of the co-accused Maibam Jateshore

Singh contradicted his earlier report given in the remand

application dated 27.6.2022, inasmuch as the question of

unconscious possession was revealed in support of the

petitioner, whereas in the bail objection report, he specifically

with a person and subjective interest appears to implicate the

petitioner by defending the other co-accused meaning thereby

the investigation itself seems to be ingrained with favouritism

and one sided. This Court finds some force in the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 16

23. On a perusal of the materials available on record,

prima facie, Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act cannot be applied

to the case of the petitioner corresponding to the instant FIR,

inasmuch as the petitioner was not in possession of the seized

substances, nor was his vehicle carrying or transporting the said

contraband substances. Rather, as admitted by the

prosecution, the contraband substances were found to be

carried, transported and possession in the vehicle of co-

accused Maibam Jateshore Singh bearing registration

No.MN01-AS-0772. In the remand report dated 8.7.2022, the

ASI of Moreh Police Station stated that one Eeco van bearing

registration No.MN01-AS-1683 which was driven by the

petitioner was also seized in connection with the above referred

case on production by the complainant. The report further

shows that no contraband substances were seized from the

possession of the petitioner.

24. Prima facie, Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act,

cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner in relation to the

FIR in question by the reason of fact that the seized substances

have been recovered from the vehicle of the co-accused and as

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

such, the petitioner cannot be implicated within the purview of

Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.

25. Coming to the offence alleged against the

petitioner under Section 29 of the NDPS Act is concerned,

prima facie, the said Section shall not have a binding force to

implicate the petitioner on the ground of conspiracy and

abetment, as there is a lack of positive evidence about doing

unlawful act of such nature. The investigating officer, after

taking ample period of time, has not been able to establish

where meeting of minds to hatch conspiracy to transport the

seized psychotropic substances with the co-accused in nexus

with Md. Makakmayum Rahish, who had proposed to carry the

said seized substances in the vehicle of the petitioner is made

out.

26. At this juncture, by placing reliance upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of

India v. MahaboobAlam, (2004) 4 SCC 105, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the Court

has power to grant bail in spite of the language of Section 32-

A, that the same should be done only and strictly subject to the

conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 18

27. The mandatory two conditions incorporated under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act qua the enlargement on bail unless

reasonable ground exists for the petitioner not to be guilty of the

offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

are fulfilled because the seized contraband substances were

not directly recovered from his possession. Secondly, the

seized contraband substances have not been transported

through any conveyance owned by the petitioner. Thirdly, the

petitioner has not at any point of time been arrested or

implicated in such criminal offence of having involved in any

NDPS Act cases prior to the instant FIR.

28. Prima facie, the prosecution has failed to produce

any material against the petitioner to show that he cannot be

enlarged on bail. On the other hand, as rightly argued by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, so far no incrimination

evidence of slightest nature could be adduced to implicate the

petitioner into the alleged offence under Section 22(c), nor any

evidence to induce him under Section 29 or Section 60(3) of the

NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the further

detention of the petitioner shall not serve in the interest of

justice.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 19

29. It is apposite to mention that in a catena of

decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where a

prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the

matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way

of punishment but whether the accused would be readily

available for the trial or he is likely to abuse the discretion

granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.

30. In the present case, in the affidavit-in-opposition

filed by the respondent, it has been stated that if the accused

person is released on bail, then there is a chance of tempering

with the witnesses and evidence related with the present case.

The respondent has not particularly stated that if the petitioner

is released on bail, he will tamper with the evidence. As stated

supra, the first accused from whom the contraband substances

were seized was released on bail by the learned Special Judge.

When the co-accused, who is the first accused (prime accused)

was released on bail, the alleged tampering of evidence by the

petitioner herein stated by the respondent is only for sake.

31. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be

penalized merely because he was arrayed as an accused and

the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 20

lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain

the petitioner for long and also without any evidence, the

detention of the petitioner is against the constitutional right and

liberty.

32. It is to be mentioned that it is the Court which has

the last say on whether there exists any reasonable grounds for

believing that the accused is guilty of committing the offence.

Furthermore, there is no blanket bar as such which is imposed

on the Court on granting of bail in such case and that the Court

can exercise discretion in releasing the accused as long as

reasons are recorded which clearly disclose how the discretion

has been exercised.

33. It is settled law that "bail ought not be denied to

teach lesson to a person whose offence is yet to be proved."

34. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2020) SCC

OnLine 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that despite the

alleged offence being grave and serious, and there being

several criminal cases pending against the accused, these

factors by themselves cannot be the basis for the refusal of the

prayer for bail.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 21

35. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."

36. In the case on hand, as stated supra, no material

has been produced by the respondent to show that earlier the

petitioner has involved this type of cases. Admittedly, the

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 22

petitioner is in jail from 17.6.2022 i.e. almost more than four

months and the co-accused has already been released on bail.

37. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioner

is in jail for more than four months i.e. he is in custody for more

than 120 days and it is reported that the investigation has been

completed even after lapse of four months from the date of

registration of case.

38. In Vaman NarainGhiya v. State of Rajasthan,

(2009) 2 SCC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

"7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 23

alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)"

39. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

emphasized the importance of the principle of personal liberty

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and noted

that no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts

unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter.

40. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 24

At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter of trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail."

41. It is well settled that while considering an

application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This

requirement stems from the desirability that no party should

have the impression that his case has been pre-judged.

Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 25

Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not

required.

42. There is no quarrel over the proposition that where

the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has

to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the

offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the

larger interest of the public.

43. As stated supra, the allegations levelled against

the petitioner are to be proved by way of oral and documentary

evidence and, thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the

merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the

ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police to

complete the investigation, this Court has noted the merits in

order to consider the bail application.

44. In a catena of decision, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that a procedure which keeps large number of

people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded

as "reasonable, just, fair" so as to be in conformity with the

provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining

the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a

gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 26

45. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to

be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that

the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence.

There must be some prima facie evidence on record or

reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the

benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse

his liberty or he would create conditions which are not

conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

various judgments has confirmed that "bail is the rule and jail is

an exception". The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventive, but is meant to secure presence of the accused

during the trial.

46. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail

custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of

India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled

for speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious

allegations are levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner

cannot be denied bail.

47. The primary purposes of ball in a criminal case are

to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of

the burden of detaining him, pending the trial, and at the same

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 27

time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the

Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will

submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance

thereon whenever his presence is required.

48. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1

SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

"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."

49. As stated supra, this Court as well as the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is

an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 28

bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

50. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay,

(1977) 4 SCC 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail.

So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial

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

element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight."

51. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail

have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.

Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a

judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the

stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be

undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons

for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted,

particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed

a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 30

suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the

Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances and

the following facts also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

52. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal

jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning

thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a

reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to

some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not

detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other

offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal

jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 31

putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is

an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles

appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and

more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods.

This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to

our society.

53. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is

entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail

application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has

been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the

country.

54. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to

be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application.

Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane

treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an

accused is requirement of law.

55. During the course of arguments, the learned

counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to

furnish sufficient bonds and he is also ready to co-operate with

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 32

the investigating officer and also he will abide by any terms and

conditions that may be imposed by this Court while ordering

bail.

56. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to

languish behind bars for a longer period of time and that the

veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can be

tested during trial. That apart, in view of the undertaking given

by the petitioner that he will not attempt to influence any witness

or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the

present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from

justice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to

be enlarged on bail.

57. Accordingly, Bail Application No.17 of 2022 is

allowed and the petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh, son of

Ngangom Modhumangol Singh, a resident of Takhel Awang

Leikai P.O. & P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur is

ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR Case

No.32(6)2022 under Section 22(c)/60(3)/29 of NDPS Act on the

file of the Moreh Police Station, subject to his furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 33

only) and deposit into Court a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as security

which is returnable with two local sureties in the like amount to

the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (ND&PS) Manipur,

Imphal, with the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro

Singh shall not leave the place of

residence without permission of the

learned SpecialCourt and shall

ordinarily reside at a place of residence

and the complete address of such

place shall be furnished to the learned

Special Court at the time of release.

                     (ii)    The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro

                             Singh     shall   report   before    the

investigating officer daily at 10.30 a.m.

until further orders.

(iii) If the petitioner Ngangom Somorendro

Singh has a passport, he shall also

surrender the same to the learned

Special Court.

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 34

(v) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro

Singh shall not contact, visit or threaten

or offer any inducement to the

prosecution witnesses.

(vi) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro

Singh shall not tamper with evidence

nor otherwise indulge in any act or

omission that would prejudice the

proceedings in the matter.

(vii) The petitioner NgangomS omorendro

Singh shall not do anything against the

interest of the State, society or

investigation of the case.

(viii) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro

Singh shall not do anything which is an

offence under the NDPS Act or any

other law.

(ix) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro

Singh shall always be available to the

investigating officer, if required by him

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022 P a g e | 35

and shall co-operate with him as

required.

(x) It is clarified that if the petitioner

Ngangom Somorendro Singh misuses

the liberty or violate any of the

conditions imposed upon him, the

prosecution shall be free to move this

Court for cancellation of the bail.

(viii) Any observations made hereinabove

shall not be construed to be a reflection

on the merits of the case and shall

remain confined to the disposal of the

present bail petition.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2022