Elangbam Rabi Singh vs The Officer-In-Charge
2022 Latest Caselaw 430 Mani

SHAMURAILATPAM   Digitally signed by
                 SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA    Date: 2022.09.29 11:45:36 +05'30'
                                                                                                Page |1



                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                      AT IMPHAL

                                                     Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022

                      Elangbam Rabi Singh, aged about 29 years, S/o E.
                      Mohindro Singh of Yangdong Makha Leikai, P.S.
                      Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur.
                                                                                  .........Petitioner

                                                 -Versus-

                      1. The Officer-in-charge, Waikhong Police Station,
                            P.O. & P.S. Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur.
                                                                                  .... Respondent

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

For the Petitioner :: Mr. S. Jibon, Advocate

For the Respondent :: Mr. H. Samarjit, PP

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 16.08.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 28.09.2022

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.09(05)2022 under Section 17/18/20 of UA(P) Act on the file of

WKG Police Station.

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |2

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.5.2022, Shri

N.Dilip Singh, Head Constable, CDO Unit Kakching reported that

he received a reliable information about the presence of valley

based underground members at Elangkhangpokpi area. On

receiving information, a team of CDO unit under the command of

Inspector Shri Abash Khan and under the supervision of Additional

Superintendent of Police Shri Binoy Chongtham and overall

supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Kakching Shri Shrey

Vats rushed to the area and conducted search at suspected areas.

During search, one person was detained for verification at

Yangdong. On verification, he identified himself as Elangbam Rabi

Singh (petitioner herein), who is an active cadre of UNLF. He also

stated that he joined the banned organisation through one Erei

while he was working at Moreh in January, 2022 and he was tasked

to carry out extortion for the banned organisation in Kakching

District. He further disclosed that he met one Meiraba of Chajing

Khunou, Sugnu, in the month of April, 2022 at Yangdong and that

Meiraba was also tasked to carry out extortion along with him.

Immediately, he was arrested at 9.40 p.m. and on body search, one

Redmi Ye mobile phone with IMEI 1:868559042049110 and IMEI

2: 868559042049128 was found and the same was seized after

observing formalities.

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |3

3. Further case of the prosecution is that immediately the

team rushed to Chajing Khunou area and cordoned off the area.

During the said operation, one person was detained and on

verification, he was identified as Mutum Meriraba and on further

verification, the said person disclosed that he joined the party

through one Munaidraba, presently staying in Myanmar and a

member of UNLF during the month of March, 2022. He stated that

he was in regular contact with Munaidraba through Whatsapp and

was tasked to collect the contact numbers of businessman in

Kakching District area and in Imphal area also. He further stated

that he along with the petitioner (Rabi) were to collect extortion

money from the businessmen in Sugnu area and after collection of

extortion money, Meiraba was to send the same to the bank

accounts, which were to be informed later using his current bank

account at Axis Bank, Kakching. The team also arrested Meiraba

at 11.00 p.m. and seized (1) One plus mobile phone with IMEI 1:

865300040232017 and IMEI 2: 865300040232009; (2) One POCO

mobile phone with IMEI 1: 868842056298470 and IMEI 2:

868842056298488; (3) One ASUS Laptop silver in colour.

Thereafter, the arrested persons along with the seized articles were

handed over for taking further action.

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |4

4. Opposing the bail application, the respondent State

filed affidavit-in-opposition.

5. Mr. S. Jibon, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case

and that he is a simple mason and he never committed any terrorist

acts as alleged by the prosecution. He would submit that at the time

of arrest and during the period of investigation, no incriminating

article were recovered from his possession and also from any place

to make out prima facie case against the petitioner. Further, nobody

was examined to corroborate and to make out the report of the

informant of the present FIR Case.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner was arrested on 22.5.2022 and from 22.5.2022, he was

in judicial custody and that earlier, the petitioner has filed bail

application before the Sessions Judge, Thoubal in Cril. Misc. (B)

Case No.109 of 2022. By the order dated 10.6.2022, the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application without

consideration of the innocence of the petitioner and also without

consideration and analyse of the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge the petitioner on

bail.

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |5

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

Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation,

the investigating officer examined the complainant and his police

team one after another and recorded their statements in writing.

Their statements corroborated each other and the team had also

seized some important articles from the possession of the

petitioner. He would submit that from the examination of the seized

mobile phones, it is established that the accused persons have

frequent contact with their leader namely Erei @ Mutnaidaba and

also established that they had contact with the senior cadres of

UNLF and given tasks to collect money.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

submitted that on interrogation the petitioner admitted that he is a

close associate of Erei @ Mutnaidaba since October, 2019 and he

had visited him at Namphalong, Myanmar and he lastly visited

UNLF camp at Namphalong on 16.5.2022. There, he was assigned

to contact accused Mutum Meiraba and collect fund from Saw Mill

owners of Kakching District. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the

bail application.

9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also

perused materials available on record.

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |6

10. According to the petitioner, he was a mason by

profession and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the

prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

According to the petitioner, on 22.5.2022 at about 4.00 p.m., he was

arrested by a team of CDO Unit under the command of the

Inspector from his house without issuing any arrest memo on the

false charge that he is an active cadre of the banned organization

UNLF and he has been tasked to carry out extortion for the said

organisation in Kakching District mainly in Sugnu area.

11. The prosecution has vehemently argued that the

petitioner is having frequent contact with his leader Erei @

Mutnaidaba and also a member of terrorist organisation of UNLF

and is working for collection of fund, extortion activity for the outfit.

12. It appears that earlier the petitioner has filed bail

application in Crl. Misc (B) Case No.109 of 2022 before the learned

Sessions Judge, Thoubal and by the order dated 10.6.2022, the

learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application. The order

dated 10.6.2022 reads thus:

"CDs placed before me.

Perused the same.

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |7

Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the

accused is prima facie involved in the present

case by raising funds for the said outfit and prayed

for rejecting the bail application.

Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that

the accused has been falsely implicated in the

present case and that he is a simple mason and

that he never committed any terrorist acts. He

prayed for releasing the accused on bail by

imposing conditions.

I have perused and considered the relevant

materials on record in the light of the submission

made and I am of the view that there are sufficient

materials to show that the accused has bene

involved in raising funds for the banned outfit.

Hence, bail is denied."

13. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Sessions Judge has wrongly rejected the bail application of

the petitioner without consideration of his innocence and also

without consideration of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |8

14. On a reading of the order of the learned Sessions

Judge, this Court finds that taking note of the seriousness of the

offence and also considering the prima facie case established by

the prosecution through CDs, the learned Sessions Judge rightly

rejected the bail application of the petitioner. This Court finds no

error in the order of learned Single Judge in refusing to grant bail.

15. When this Court examined the materials produced by

the prosecution, prima facie, the same reveal that the petitioner

being a member of terrorist organisation of UNLF and is actively

working in collection of fund, extortion activity for the outfit. The

prosecution also prima facie proved the charge against the

petitioner for commission of the offence punishable under Section

17/18/20 of UA(P) Act. Furthermore, the investigation is at initial

stage and the prosecution has to collect some more important

materials and has to examine more witnesses to substantiate the

charge against the accused. Therefore, releasing the petitioner at

this stage of investigation will hamper in the further investigation of

the case. Thus, prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has no legs.

That apart, there is no merit in seeking bail. As to whether the

petitioner is an active member of the banned organisation or not

can be decided only at the time of trial. At this stage, the innocence

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022 Page |9

pleaded by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, the offence

alleged against the petitioner and another is serious in nature.

Therefore, the bail application is liable to be dismissed.

16. In the result, the bail application is dismissed. No

costs.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

Bail Appln. No. 12 of 2022