Manipur High Court

Abonmai Charangbou vs The Officer-In-Charge on 20 September, 2022

SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL            Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
                                 SHARMA
SHARMA                           Date: 2022.09.20 16:40:55 +05'30'
                                                                                         Page |1

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                AT IMPHAL

                                                    AB No. 54 of 2021

                                   Abonmai Charangbou, aged about 42 years, S/o.
                                   Abonmai Lungphoupou, by occupation Chairman
                                   of Mapao Thangal Village Authority, by caste
                                   Thangal Tribe of Manipur, resident of Mapao
                                   Thangal Village, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Kangpokpi
                                   District, Manipur-795136.
                                                                                 ....Petitioner

                                                             -Versus-

                                   The Officer-in-charge, Sekmai Police Station,
                                   Sekmai Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai Bazar, Imphal
                                   West District, Manipur-795136.
                                                                               ..... Respondent

AB No. 55 of 2021

Abonmai Samson, aged about 39 years, S/o. Abonmai Pouhotpou, by occupation Secretary of Mapao Thangal Village Authority, by caste Thangal Tribe of Manipur, resident of Mapao Thangal Village, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Kangpokpi District, Manipur-795136.

....Petitioner/accused

-Versus-

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |2

The Officer-in-charge, Sekmai Police Station, Sekmai Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai Bazar, Imphal West District, Manipur-795136.

..... Respondent

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

For the Petitioners :: Ms. Ayangleima, Advocate.

For the Respondents             ::        Mr. H. Samarjit, Addl. PP
                                          Mr. M. Rarry, complainant

Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order ::             16.08.2022

Date of Judgment & Order             ::   20.09.2022

                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                            (CAV)

These petitions have been filed by the petitioners

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in

event of arrest in connection with the FIR No.15(3)2021 under

Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC on the file of Sekmai Police

Station.

2. Heard Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.3.2021

at 3.00 P.M., Rarry Mangsatabam of Thangmeiband reported to

the Officer-in-charge of Sekmai Police Station that in the

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |3

intervening night from 7.00 P.M. of 18.3.2021 and morning of

19.03.2021, the petitioners entered at the complainant's

homestead land located at Potshangbam Khunou, Manipur of

Tingri-Mapao Thangal Lambi and threatened the men, agents,

workers of the complainant and directed to leave the house

located at the said homestead land and in the event of not

leaving the house warned that they would face dire

consequences of assault, hurt and even losing their lives. On

19.3.2021 at about 10.00 A.M., when the workers of the

complainant reached the said homestead land, Andy

Mangsatabam and Annie Mangsatabam found that the pucca

concrete pillar with iron mess wiring were vandalized and

destroyed the fencing and the gate has also been found

dismantled. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer-in-charge

registered a case in FIR No.15(3)2021 under Sections

457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC and took up the case for

investigation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the petitioners are businessmen by profession and also

holding the post of Chairman and Secretary of Mapao Thangal

Village Authority respectively, which is a hill village of Manipur

State having its own tradition and custom in regards to holding

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |4

of land and other rights of the villagers governed by Manipur

(Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956. He would submit that

sometime in the year 1960, after the enactment of the Manipur

Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 those lands

located in the foothill of Mapao Thangal Village was parted and

included within the land surveyed and was included in the

revenue map made under the said Act. The foothill of the village

of the petitioners is parted and drawn as C.S. Dag Nos.1373,

1374 and 1375 of Village No.25, Tingri and the land is being

used by the villagers as grazing ground.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that in the

month of February, 2021, persons identified themselves as

children of late Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh along with 4-5

persons came to the land under C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and

1375 and attempted to make fencing around the same by

claiming that the said land belong to his father late

Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh. The villagers confronted to the

acts of the said persons and requested not to enter into the said

land for doing anything. Despite the request, they erected

fencing around the land by claiming that the land belonged to

their deceased father. When the petitioners and the villagers

questioned them on what capacity they tried to occupy the said

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |5

land, they replied that their father's name was recorded in the

relevant Dag chitta and, therefore, they have right to occupy the

said land.

6. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioners

and the villagers made inquiry in the office of the SDC, Sekmai

about the entries in the land records and during such inquiry,

the petitioners found that Dag chittas of the said land was

recorded in the name of State as Sarkari land and the name of

Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh was wrongly entered in the Dag

chitta without showing any allotment order.

7. The learned counsel submitted that earlier the

petitioners filed Criminal Misc, Case Nos.121 and 122 of 2021

before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West for

anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge though

granted interim pre-arrest bail and vide order dated 20.11.2021

dismissed the petitions.

8. The learned counsel next submitted that the

petitioners and the villagers of Mapao Thangal Village have filed

a civil suit, being O.S.No.38 of 2021, on the file of the Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West-II for recovery of

possession of the land in a representative capacity representing

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |6

the villagers of Mapao Thangal Village against the complainant

and his brother and sister and the said suit is pending for

disposal.

9. The learned counsel then submitted that the

complainant and his brother and their hired labourers put up

two/three sheds with kutcha wall roofed with tin, inside the cattle

grazing ground under police protection and by taking advantage

of his official status being Additional Advocate General,

Manipur. Taking advantage of the post the complainant held, he

directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of his

deceased father in the Dag chitta.

10. The learned counsel urged that a civil dispute has

been coloured as criminal case by the complainant. Without

having any right over the lands, the complainant in order to grab

the Government land, put up fencing and even raised

construction in the said land. The act of the complainant is

without any right over the land and that the present complaint

has been filed completely ignoring the true facts and that based

on the complaint, the police personnel of Sekmai police station

are searching to arrest the petitioners on false and fabricated

allegations in connection with the above FIR case and that the

petitioners have apprehension that they may be arrested by the

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |7

personnel of Sekmai Police Station. Thus, a prayer is made to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

11. Taking through the objection filed on behalf of the

complainant, who was permitted to assist the learned Public

Prosecutor in this matter, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners claim to be the

Chairman and the Secretary of the hill village, however, no

document has been produced to establish the same and that it

is an un-denial fact that Kholel Thangai was the Hereditary

Chief/Khulakpa of Mapao Thangal Village and after his death,

his son Mayonpam Thangai inherited the Chiefship and is still

alive. There cannot be democracy vote in the village of such

hill areas as per the provisions of Manipur (Village Authority in

Hills Areas) Act, particularly, Section 3(4) of the Act provides

that such Chief/Khulakpa in the village shall be ex-officio

Chairman of the village. Therefore, the question of the

petitioners claiming to be the Chairman and Secretary is per se

against the provisions of law and cannot be accepted.

12. Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the complainant had been in actual,

conscious, constructive, joint, legal and physical possession of

the land under C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374, 1375, 2122, 2223 and

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |8

2124 since 1988 in terms of the order passed in Misc. Case 12

(SDC) (IW(N)/1998 as the legal possession, occupancy and all

rights thereto were transferred and handed over to late

Mangasatabam Punyabati Devi, wife of Mangsatabam

Iboyaima Singh during her life time and with full consent,

Mayonpam Thangal had voluntarily abandoned the possession

in favour of Mangsatabam Punyabati Devi during her life time.

After the life of the complainant's mother and father, now the

complainant is in continuous, uninterrupted, actual and physical

possession of the said land till date and the revenue records are

also in the name of the complainant.

13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

submitted that there were 8 houses in Mapao Thangal Village

during survey and now population is 200 persons. The

petitioners claim to be presently serving as Chairman and

Secretary for nearly 40 years and that in the year 1988 when

the parents of the complainant voluntarily handed over the

actual possession of the land, the petitioners were of the age of

about 5 years and 8 years respectively. Therefore, there is no

question of the petitioners being the Chairman and Secretary of

the village for the past 40 years.

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 Page |9

14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the petitioners have trespassed inside the

homestead land of the complainant and they have also caused

obstruction in the discharge of the public duty to the Electricity

Department officials while giving electricity connection to the

complainant. The petitioners have threatened and criminally

intimidated the officials and also the workers of the complainant

with dire consequences by taking the law into their own hands.

15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

submitted that on 18.3.2021 while the workers of the

complainant were constructing the boundary fensing inside the

homestead land, accused Ningthou brandishing deadly

weapons threatened the workers of the complainant with dire

consequences that blood will be shed, if workers do not stop the

work immediately. In this regard, the complainant filed another

police complaint on 18.3.2021 and that the petitioners and

Ningthou along with henchmen committed house trespass in

the night and destroyed the pucca concrete pillar, iron mess

wiring, iron gate, culvert, house of the complainant in the

intervening night on 18.3.2021 at around 4.00 p.m. after

completing the day's work. Since the allegations levelled

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 10

against the petitioners are serious in nature, they cannot be

granted anticipatory bail.

16. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

17. The grievance of the petitioners is that sometime

in the last part of February, 2021, persons identified themselves

as children of late Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh along with 4-

5 persons came to the land in C.S. Dag Nos.1373,1 374 and

1375 and attempted to make fencing around the same by

claiming that the said land belong to his father namely

Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh. On seeing the act of the said

persons, the villagers and the petitioners questioned the same.

While so, the family of the petitioners received summon from

the respondent police directing them to appear before the

Officer-in-Charge of Sekmai Police Station in connection with

the FIR case registered based on the complaint given by Rarry

Mangsatabam. According to the petitioners, they have been

falsely implicated in the case and they have not committed any

offence as alleged in the complaint.

18. On the other hand, the complainant denied that

Mapao Thangal Village is a hill village, as all the lands are

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 11

covered by the survey of 1960 in terms of the Manipur Land

Revenue and Reforms Act, 1960 and its allied Rules, 1961.

Further, the land in question is not part of Hills, but part of

Village No.25-Tingri village and also not part of Senapati or

Kangpokpi District. The revenue records stood in the name of

the complainant after the demise of his parents and that the

complainant is in physical and actual possession of C.S. Dag

Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 without any interference or hindrance

from any quarter.

19. According to the complainant, he has not put up

any construction in the grazing land and he never took

advantage of the position held as Additional Advocate General

or had made any wrong entry in the Dag chitta as alleged by the

petitioners. In fact, the petitioners are evading to co-operate

with the investigating officer and because of their non-

cooperation, the investigation is still on-going.

20. The specific case of the prosecution is that on

19.3.2021 at about 10.00 a.m. when the workers of the

complainant reached the homestead land in question, they

found that the pucca concrete pillar with iron mess wiring were

vandalized and destroyed by the petitioners in the intervening

night from 7.00 p.m. on 18.3.2021 and morning of 19.3.2021.

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 12

In the complaint also, the complainant stated that the accused

committed house trespass in the night and destroyed the house

of the complainant which is built in the middle portion of the said

homestead land. That apart, the accused have also destroyed

the toilet and other pucca structures.

21. Earlier the petitioners filed Criminal Misc. (AB)

Case Nos.23 and 24 of 2021 before the learned Sessions

Judge, Imphal West and by the order dated 23.3.2021, the

learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail to the

petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed Criminal

Misc. (AB) No.121 and 122 of 2021 under Section 439(2) of

Cr.P.C. to cancel the interim anticipatory bail granted to the

petitioner.

22. By the order dated 20.11.2021, the learned

Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petitions thereby

cancelled the interim bail dated 23.3.2021 granted to the

petitioners and also disposed of the cancellation bail petitions.

While rejecting anticipatory bail petitions, the learned Sessions

Judge held as under:

"8. From the above discussions and findings,

this Court comes to the conclusion that the

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 13

dispute of the suit land must be resolved by the

civil court. As the damages on the structures

of the suit land is concerned, destroying of any

property without process of due law and

violation of conditions imposed by this Court, it

is presumed to be an act of criminal offence.

9. Thus, this Court finds that proper

interrogation of the case is very much

necessary to find out the actual incident.

Hence, this Court does not want to intervene

in the process of investigation.

10. Accordingly, the above two pre-arrest

bail applications were rejected and disposed

of. The interim bail dated 23rd March, 2021

stands cancelled.

11. The connected Cril Misc Case No.121

of 2021 and 122 of 2021 are also disposed.

Send a copy of this order to the OC Sekmai PS

for information."

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 14

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions

Judge, the petitioners have filed the present anticipatory bail

petitions.

23. As could be seen from the materials produced by

both sides, prima facie, the land in question are covered by the

survey of 1960 in terms of the Manipur Land Revenue and

Reforms Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder and are

not part of Hills. The petitioners claim that the said lands are

Hills and not part of survey land. But the petitioners have failed

to show any prima facie document to prove their claim. The

petitioners have also failed to show any revenue record to show

that CS Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 are adjoining Mapao

Thangal village of Khongnangpikpi.

24. On a perusal of the written objection filed by the

complainant to the pre-arrest bail petitions filed before the

learned Sessions Judge, it has been stated as under:

"11.10. ..... It is submitted that, as per record, the owner of the land is the State Government. However, the complainants have become the actual owner by law of adverse possession and Law of Prescription, as against the Government, as the complainants has been in continuous,

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 15

exclusive and undisturbed possession, for more than 30 years to the knowledge of the State Government, as the State Government had always the knowledge about the hostile possession by the complainants since the Complainant had communicated this hostile possession on 08.03.1988 and continuing till date, by correcting the records of possession in the State Government Revenue Department records, for which the Dag Chitha's has been issued by the concerned authorities of the State Government as acknowledgement of this hostile possession. The Complainants has been using, developing and growing food-grains, fruit bearing trees and vegetation in this lands to the exclusive of the State Government. Hence, the Complainant has ripened their lawful title of the said lands, by way of adverse possession against the owner/State Government, on extinguishment of the owner's/State Government title."

25. That apart, on a perusal of the order passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West-II in Judl.

Misc. Case No.77 of 2021 in O.S.No.38 of 2021, it is clear that

the petitioners have failed to show any prima facie of prior

possession and on the other hand, the complainant and his

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 16

family members have a strong prima facie case and are at

present in possession of the land in question.

26. Thus, from the materials produced by the parties,

this Court finds that there is a land dispute between the

complainant and the petitioners qua the land under Dag

Nos.1373, 1374, 1375, 2133 and 2123. It is also admitted by

the parties that civil suit is pending in connection with the lands

in question.

27. According to the complainant, his family members

have been cultivating paddy since last about 35 years and

reaping rice crops through different cultivators from time to time

in Dag Nos.2122 and 2133 and even today, paddy fields have

been planted by the complainants through their men. According

to the complainant, during the pendency of the suit and

anticipatory bail applications before the learned Sessions

Judge, yet again in the night of 9.10.2021 and 13.10.2021, the

petitioners used heavy machineries and destroyed the paddy

land, vegetation and boundary mark of the complainant's land

of carving out a new road inside the land. The petitioners claim

that cattle grazing has been done on even paddy land of the

complainant. To prove the same, the petitioners have not

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 17

produced any document. However, the classification of the land

and its possession cannot be decided in these petitions.

28. The point that arises for consideration is whether

the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail in connection

with the FIR Case No.15(3)2021 registered under Sections

457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC.

29. After registration of the FIR Case, the petitioners

were summoned and appeared before the investigating officer

and the investigating officer has also recorded their statements.

Thereafter, the petitioners failed to appear before the

investigating officer. According to the prosecution, for proper

investigation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would

be required.

30. The plea of the prosecution would prima facie

establishes the involvement of the petitioners in the crime

thereby illegally entered the homestead land and destroyed the

pucca fencing by using machine in the intervening night of

18.3.2021 and morning of 19.3.2021 with criminal intention and

criminal conspiracy and common intention. The investigating

officer also suspect only the petitioners for the offence and not

others. Even on a perusal of the complaint on its face value,

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 18

prima facie, clearly makes out all the said ingredients of

commission of the offences of Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34

IPC. In order to prove the offence, the complainant has also

produced photographs. Therefore, 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 going on.

31. It is pertinent to note that the learned Sessions

Judge, while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications has

considered the case and has rightly rejected the applications.

The learned Sessions Judge also held that even after getting

interim bail from the Court, the petitioners made destructions in

violation of the conditions imposed in the bail orders. This Court

finds no error in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. As

rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, proper interrogation

of the case is very much necessary to find out the truth and this

Court does not want to intervene in the process of investigation.

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

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

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others,

(2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the parameters as under:

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 19

"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;

(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.

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 20

(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;

(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;

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 21

(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."

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

SCC 379, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 granting such

relief, the court must record the reasons

therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only

in exceptional circumstances where the court

AB No. 54 of 2021 with AB No. 55 of 2021 P a g e | 22

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.