Smt. Ningthoujam Prema Devi vs The Officer-In-Charge
2023 Latest Caselaw 160 Mani

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                         AT IMPHAL
                     AB No. 47 of 2022

 1. Smt. Ningthoujam Prema Devi, aged about 61 years, W/o
    Ningthoujam Deben Singh of Khangabok Khullakpam Leikai,
    P.O. & P.S.: Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
 2. Ningthoujam Arkey Singh, aged about 30 years old, S/o
    Ningthoujam Deben Singh of Khangabok Khulakpam Leikai, P.O.
    & P.S.: Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
 3. Moirangthem Herojit Singh aged about 37 years old, S/o M. Naba
    Singh of Khangabok Khulakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.: Thoubal
    District, Manipur-795138.
 4. Moirangthem Machal Devi aged about 35 years old, W/o
    Moirangthem Herojit Singh of Khangabok Khulakpam Leikai, P.O.
    & P.S. :Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
 5. Laishram Brojeshwori @ Mache Devi aged about 38 years old,
    W/o (Late) L. Sanjit Singh of Khangabok Moirang Palli Leikai at
    present residing at Khangabok Khullakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. :
    Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
                                             ...... Petitioner/s
                            - Versus -

 1. The Officer-in-Charge, Thoubal Police Station, Manipur having its
    Office at Thoubal Police Station, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
    District, Manipur-795138.
                                       .....Official Respondent

2. Shri Saikhom Kunjabihari Singh aged about 40 years S/o Late S. Kondum Singh of Khangabok Khullakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.

......Private Respondent/Complainant

with AB No. 30 of 2022

1. Smt. Ningthoujam Prema Devi, aged about 61 years, W/o Late Ningthoujam Deben Singh of Khangabok Khulakpam Palli Leikai, P.O. & P.S. : Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.

Page 1

2. Smt. Thokchom Jamuna Devi, aged about 55 years, D/o Thokchom Chaoni Singh of Khangabok Khulakpam Palli Leikai, P.O. & P.S.: Thoubal District, Manipur-795138 .....Petitioner

-vs-

The Officer-in-Charge, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police Station, Manipur having its Office at Lamphelpat D.C., Imphal West Complex, P.O. & P.S. Lamphelpat, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004

.....Respondent with AB No. 84 of 2019

Smt. Ningthoujam Prema Devi, aged about 61 years, W/o Late Ningthoujam Deben Singh of Khangabok Khulakpam Palli Leikai, P.O. & P.S. : Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.

....Petitioner

-vs-

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat (South Block), P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Director General of Police, Babupara Manipur Police Complex, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Thoubal, Thoubal Police Station Complex, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.

4. The Officer-in-Charge, Thoubal Police Station, Thoubal, Thoubal Police Station Complex, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138 .....Official Respondents

5. Shri Kunjabihari Singh, S/o (L) Kondum of Khangabok Khullakpam Leikai (Palli), P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur- 795138.

....Private Respondent/Complainant

Page 2 B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the petitioner :: Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Murtaza Ahmed, Advocate.

      For the respondents         ::      Mr. Y. Ashang, PP for the State in all
                                          the matters and Mr. Diko for the
                                          respondent No. 2 in AB No.       47 of
                                          2022   and    Mr.    Ph.   Sanajaoba,
                                          Advocate for the respondent No. 5 in
                                          AB No. 84 of 2019.
      Date of hearing              ::     29.03.2023
      Date of Judgment and Order ::       12.04.2023

                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)


[1]             The above 3 (three) bail applications are considered together

as arising out of the same property dispute. These cases arise out of the

property dispute between the petitioners and the private respondent.

[2] In AB No. 47 of 2022, it is alleged that private respondent,

namely S. Kunjabihari Singh, lodged a complaint dated 27.04.2022 and

alleging that on the same day, the petitioner herein made criminal trespass

into his homestead land by holding a spade and attempted to kill his

brother and wife and also threatened with his service gun on the previous

dates. After 3 months i.e. on 29.07.2022, the Officer-in-Charge, Thoubal

Police registered a case being FIR No. 127(7)2022 TBL PS U/S

447/307/34 IPC against the accused person. The accused Nos. 1 to 4

approached the Court of Ld. Special Sessions Judge, Thoubal by an

Page 3 application under Section 438 Cr.P.C in Cril.Misc.(B)Case No. 68 of 2022

and vide order dated 10.08.2022, interim protection was given to them with

a direction to co-operate with the investigating authority. The accused No.

5 also approached the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal by way of similar

application being Cril.Misc.(AB) Case No. 71 of 2022 and vide order dated

14.09.2022, interim protection was given to her also. Vide separate orders

dated 14.09.2022 in Cril.Misc.(AB) Case No. 68 of 2022 and 71 of 2022,

the Ld. Sessions Judge, rejected the bail application and vacated the

interim orders on the grounds that the accused had committed a serious

offence punishable under Section 447/307/341 IPC and they did not

appear before the investigating authority to record their statements. Being

aggrieved by this order, the 5 accused persons filed the present application

being AB No. 47 of 2022 before this Court.

[2.1] Vide order dated 23.09.2022, this Court issued notice and

directed the State respondents not to arrest the petitioners and interim

order has been extended from time to time. It is the case of the

petitioners/accused that on 27.04.2022, the complainant/private

respondent No. 2, namely S. Kunjabihari Singh along with his wife had

destroyed the kutcha fencing made of bamboo at the southern side of the

homestead land recorded in the name of petitioner No. 5, Smt. L.

Brojeshwori @ Mache Devi and was threatened to be killed by the

complainant herein by using his license gun. A written report was filed

before the OC, Thoubal PS but no case was registered on the complaint

dated 30.04.2022. It is stated that the FIR was registered after 3 months to

Page 4 harass the petitioner herein while no case was registered against the

complainant with respect to the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 5

herein. It is also stated that there are civil litigations between the parties

with respect to the land properties and the petitioner No. 1 herein has been

granted interim bail. The petitioner No. 1 herein has already been granted

interim bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2019 in AB No. 84 of 2019

and vide order dated 12.07.2022 in AB No. 30 of 2022, in 2 (two) FIRs

lodged by the complainant herein and Vigilance and Anti-corruption Police

station. It is also stated that the petitioner never trespassed into the land of

the complainant but they were erecting their fencing when the petitioners

were trying to bind their fencing to his original same, the complainant with

the gun threatened and beaten the petitioner more particularly, the

petitioner No. 1 and shot gun near her leg. It was stated that the whole

incident was captured vividly in video footage and photographs of the

complainant holding gun in his hand was also annexed along with the

petition.

[2.2] The complainant/respondent No. 2 filed written objection to

the bail application. It is stated that the incident was caused by the

petitioner against the respondent No. 2 regarding the land dispute pending

before the civil Court. It is also stated that the photographs purportedly

taken on 27.04.2022 with respondent No. 2/complainant holding gun was

also filed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 6 of 2020 filed by the petitioner

No. 1 before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal and the same

counsel had filed the same complaint. It is stated that in his own

Page 5 photograph taken prior to 2020. It is stated that there are separate criminal

case pending against the petitioner. It is prayed that that the bail may be

rejected.

[2.3] The State respondent also filed written objection to the bail

application and stated that on careful examination during the investigation,

the incident has been confirmed. There are other FIRs pending against the

petitioners and their anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the Ld.

Sessions Judge, Thoubal, as they did not turn up before the I.O. and did

not co-operate with the investigation. It is stated that bail application may

be rejected.

[3] AB No. 30 of 2022 is arising out of the FIR No. 9(11)2021

VGL. PS U/Ss 120-B r/w 420 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988

where the petitioners along with her daughter and 2 (two) officials of the

Revenue Department were made accused for cheating, criminal conspiracy

and misconduct and this case arises out of the complaint filed by Shri

Saikhom Kunjabihari Singh with the Chief Minister, Manipur. The complaint

dated 22.02.2020 submitted by the complainant Shri Saikhom Kunjabihari

Singh in 'Meeyamgi Numit (People's Day)' organised by the Chief Minister

the matter was referred to DC, Thoubal for investigation by the Vigilance.

Accordingly, the above FIR was registered.

[3.1] The complainant stated that with respect to the homestead

land under patta No. 33/1464 (New) of Khangabok, Thoubal Teshil

covered by C.S. Dag No. 4582 measuring an area of 0.4371 hectares was

purchased by him from one Laishram Birendra Singh by executing a

Page 6 Registered Sale Deed. Thereafter, sold out one piece of land to

Ningthoujam Prema Devi measuring an area of 0.2509 hectare out of

0.4371 by executing a Registered Sale Deed in the year 2010 and then,

again sold out another piece to one Laishram Mache @ Brojeshori Devi

measuring an area of 0.0607 by executing a Registered Sale Deed in the

year 2013. After selling two piece of land, the complainant had only 0.1255

hectare. Unfortunately, by two different orders by two different AS & SOs,

Thoubal on the same day and date in the same Mut.Case No., i.e.

Mut.Case No. 9/AS & SO, Thoubal his name was cancelled in the record of

rights.

[3.2] The petitioners and the co-accused, namely Laishram Mache

Devi filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC being Cril.Misc.(AB) No.

118 of 2021 before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal and vide order dated

28.12.2021, interim order was granted. The accused, namely Laishram (O)

Mache Devi, was remanded to judicial custody and vide order dated

07.07.2022, the Ld. Special Judge (PC ACT), Thoubal remanded her to

judicial custody in the same FIR. It is stated that the homestead land

measuring an area of 0.4371 situated at village No. 33 Khangabok,

Thoubal District covered by Dag No. 4582 under new Patta No. 1464

corresponding to the old patta No. 33/894, Thoubal was initially recorded

in the name of pattadar namely Ningthoujam Panchano and later on, it was

transferred in the name of Ningthoujam Nimai vide Mutation Case No.

16/ASO/TBL/2009 and Mr. Laishram Birendra Singh became the absolute

owner of the whole homestead land. The said homestead land was

Page 7 transferred by Laishram Birendra Singh to one Saikhom Kunjabihari

Singh(informant/complainant) vide Mut.Case N0. 131/ASO/TBL of 2009

and became the absolute owner. Then, the land was disposed of in series

of transaction one piece after another piece in favour of the present

petitioner and her daughter namely Laishram (O) Mache @ Brojeshwari

Devi in the following manners as:

(i) That the said Saikhom Kunjabihari Singh disposed of a

piece of Ingkhol measuring 0.2509 hectare

corresponding to a "Sangam (in local term) out of total

areas measuring 0.4371 hectares in consideration of

Rs. 30,000/- on 02.03.2010 in favour of the petitioner

No. 1 (Sale Deed No. 237/2010 on 04.03.2010), thus

the name of the petitioner No. 1 along with S.

Kunjabihari Singh were recorded as co-pattadars in the

record of rights/jamabandi by their respective shares

correctly vide order dated 01.09.2010 passed in

Mut.Case No. 132/AS & SO/2010. Now the share of the

petitioner and the share of S. Kunjabihari is 0.1862

hectares.

(ii) Thereafter, out of the share of S. Kunjabihari Singh i.e.

0.1862 hectares, a piece of land measuring 0.0607

hectare corresponding to a 'Loushel' was again

disposed of in favour of the petitioner No. 1's daughter,

Laishram Ongbi Mache @ Brojeshwari Devi in

Page 8 consideration of Rs. 34,000/- out of the remaining area

of S. Kunjabihari Sigh share i.e. 0.1862 hectare only by

executing Regd. Sale Deed No. 1009/SR/TBL on

08.10.2013 and the name of Laishram Ongbi Mache @

Brojeshwari Devi was recorded in the record of

rights/jamabandi vide order dated 02.01.2014. Now the

share of Co-pattadar namely Laishram Ongbi Mache @

Brojeshwari Devi is 0.0607 hectares and the share of

Co-pattadar, S. Kunjabihari Singh left is 0.1255

hectares.

(iii) Now the remaining area of the aforesaid Ingkhol

measuring 0.1255 hectare left with Co-pattadar namely

S. Kunjabihari Singh along with standing structures is

finally disposed of by way of sale in favour of the

petitioner on 07.04.2015 wherein the name of the

petitioner No. 1 was entered in the records-of-

rights/jamabandi through field Mutation/field Naam-jarii

vide order dated 07.04.2015 passed in Mutation Case

No. 553 of 2015 and the sale was established through

the record statement of the parties and the recorded

statement of attesting witnesses dated 07.04.2015.

Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 become the absolute

owner of the joint two pieces of Ingkhols measuring an

area of 0.3764 hectare altogether. Now the petitioner

Page 9 No. 1 and her daughter namely Laishram (O) Mache @

Brojeshwari owned the aforesaid Ingkhol measuring

0.4371 hectares. There the spot enquiry was done by

the Mandol of the Assistant Settlement & Survey Officer

(As & SO), Thoubal namely Khundrakpam Lalbabu

Singh in presence of the petitioner No. 1 and S.

Kunjabihari Singh in presence of the petitioner No. 2,

the then ward Member, 13/5 Khangabok Pt-1 GP, L.

Mache Devi W/o Late Surjit Singh and S. Jiten Singh,

S/o Kondum of Khangabok Makha Leikai as attesting

witnesses and their signature and photographs were

also duly given at their own consent. While the said

Mandol made the spot enquiry, the parties clearly gave

their consent for the said Field Mutation (naam Jarii).

[3.3] Thereafter, there were subsequent transfers in favour of

different persons by way of sale in series of transactions and also attesting

witness in the Sale Deed being No. 1092/2015 dated 21.05.2015 and in

favour of one Laishram Maniram Singh and his name was recorded in the

land records vide Mut.Case No. 919 of 2015 of AS & SO-TBL. The

petitioner No. 1 executed a Registered Sale Deed being No. 457 of 2018

on 08.03.2018 in favour of S. Kunjabihari Singh for an area of 0.4120.

Thereafter, their names were recorded as co-pattadars vide Mutation Case

No. 177 of 2018 AS 7 SO-VIII and further partition of shares vide Mut.Case

No. 159 of 2018 of AS & SO-VIII. Further, out of the remaining area of

Page 10 0.1250 hectare, the petitioner further sold 0.0627 hectares by executing

Registered Sale Deed being 993 of 2018 on 28.05.2018 in favour of

Khundrakpam Tomchou Singh. Thereafter, there was not recorded as co-

pattadars vide Mut.Case No. 217 of 2018 AS & SO/TBL and after that only

0.0623 hectares was remaining with the petitioner. The petitioner No. 1

again transferred an area of 0.0405 in favour of her daughter namely Smt.

Laishram Mache Devi @ Brojeshwari Devi and finally, an area of 0.0128

was remaining with the petitioner No. 1 and their names were recorded as

co-pattadars vide Mut.Case No. 274 of 2018 of AS & SO TBL.

[3.4] It is stated that the complainant S. Kunjabihari has full

knowledge of the series of transactions and he cannot deny being one of

the witness in the Registered Sale Deed being No. 1092/2015 dated

21.05.2015. The complainant S. Kunjabihari lodged a false complaint with

'Meeyamgi Numit' conducted by the Chief Minister and complained for

restoration of his land and the matter was forwarded to the Vigilance Anti-

corruption and accordingly, FIR No. 09(11)2022 VGL PS U/Ss 120-B r/w

420 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 was registered. The

petitioners and Laishram Mache Devi @ Brojeshwari Devi jointly

approached the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal for granting anticipatory

bail being Cril.Misc.(AB) Case No. 118 of 2021 and interim order was

granted as police submitted that there is no ground for arresting the

petitioner. Hence, the bail was disposed of vide order dated 10.02.2022.

On 05.07.2022, the petitioner No. 1's daughter namely Laishram Mache @

Page 11 Brojeshwari Devi was arrested and she was taken into custody and later on

released on bail.

[3.5] It is stated that S. Kunjabihari Singh also filed another

complaint i.e. FIR No. 115(12)2019 TBL PS U/S 193/205/209/468/420/120-

B, IPC and the petitioner No. 1 had filed one anticipatory bail being AB No.

84 of 2019 before this Court and vide order dated 20.12.2019 interim

protection was given to her. It is stated that the dispute is purely civil in

nature and the complainant S. Kunjabihari Singh in connivance with the

police harassed the petitioner. It is prayed that bail may be granted and

the petitioner will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.

[3.6] The respondent did not file any objection to the bail

application. Vide order dated 12.07.2022 this Court directed the respondent

not to arrest the petitioners.

[4] AB No. 84 of 2019 is arising out of the complaint dated

25.11.2019 by S. Kunjabihari to the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal for

taking necessary action against the 2 (two) Revenue Officers and 4 (four)

private respondents. This is the first case in this batch of cases and the

facts of the present case is similar to that of AB No. 30 of 2022 where an

FIR was registered by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Station on a

complaint submitted by the complainant herein to the Chief Minister,

Manipur. The present FIR was registered on 16.12.2019 being FIR No.

115(12)2019 TBL PS U/S 193/205/209/468/420/120-B, IPC for occurrence

on 07.04.2015. The facts of the complaint is not reproduced herein for the

sake of gravity and the sum and substance of the allegation is that the

Page 12 complainant's share of 0.1255 hectare of remaining land was cancelled

vide Mut.Case No. 553 of 2015 order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the

accused Revenue Officers by fabrication of the record, cheating and

criminal conspiracy with the private parties.

[4.1] Vide order dated 20.12.2019, the petitioner was protected

under interim order and the same order has been extended from time to

time. The contents of the present petition are almost similar to the contents

of the AB No. 30 of 2022 and the same are not reproduced. It is stated that

the present dispute arising out of the civil dispute and the

complainant/respondent No. 5 herein in connivance with the police is

harassing the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner herein also lodged a

complaint dated 05.12.2019 to the Officer-in-Charge, Thoubal Police

Station against the respondent No. 5 with respect to the cheating,

impersonation and fabrication of her signature with respect to the sale

deed but no action was taken. There are pending revenue cases in respect

of the disputed property.

[4.2] The State respondents filed objection to the bail application. It

is stated that the Revenue Officers were granted anticipatory bail by the

learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal vide orders dated 20.12.2019 and

02.01.2020. It is stated that ASO Thoubal passed an order in Mut.Case No.

9/AS & SO/TBL/2014 dated 02.04.2014 and Mut.Case No. 553 of 2015

dated 07.04.2015 without examining any sale deed. It is stated that there is

prima facie materials against the petitioners in the case. It is prayed that,

the bail may be rejected. The respondent No. 5 (complainant) also filed

Page 13 objection. The petitioner along with officials are accused of forging the

signature of the complainant and fabricating the record of right

manufacturing illegal documents. It is prayed that the bail may be rejected.

[5] Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.

Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned

PP for the State respondents, Mr. L. Diko, learned counsel for the private

respondent No. 2 in AB No. 47 of 2022 and Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned

counsel for the respondent No. 5 (complainant) in AB No. 84 of 2019.

[6] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,

submits that the present case is purely civil dispute between the parties

and there are litigations in the Civil as well as the Revenue Courts. 2 (two)

FIRs No. 9(11)2021 VGL. PS U/Ss 120-B r/w 420IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

of PC Act 1988 and 115(12)2019 TBL PS U/S 193/205/209/468/420/120-B,

IPC are basically arising out of the same allegation, one addressed to the

OC, Thoubal PS by Shri S. Kunjabihari Singh and other addressed to the

Chief Minister, Manipur submitted to the Chief Minister, Manipur in

'Meeyamgi Numit'. Then, the third FIR being FIR No. 127(7)2022 TBL PS

U/S. 447/307/34 IPC is arising out of the trespass and attempt to murder.

In FIR No. 115(12)2019 TBL PS U/S

193/205/209/468/420/120-B, IPC, the Revenue Officers were granted

absolute anticipatory bail by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal by separate

orders. Perhaps the bail orders were not challenged and attained finality.

Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel, prays that the private

accused, i.e., petitioners in this set of applications herein, are also entitled

Page 14 to the same benefit and parity along with officials of the Revenue

Department. He further submits that except for the bald allegation, there is

no material to attract the offences under Section 307 IPC in absence of any

injury report or other relevant materials. He further submits that the present

cases are filed by the complainant in connivance with the police to harass

the petitioner in civil dispute between them. Learned senior counsel has

pointed out to the fact that the complaints lodged by the petitioner against

Shri S. Kunjabihari Singh have not been taken up by the police for the

reason best known to them. He prays that the case of allegation and

fabrication of document and cheating can be investigated while the

petitioners are on bail as done with the case of the official accused. He

prays that the interim bail may be made absolute with such condition as

imposed by this Court and the petitioner will abide by all such conditions.

[7] Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP for the State respondent, submits

that the petitioners are alleged to have committed serious offences

including an attempt to murder and their interim bail was rejected by the Ld.

Sessions Judge, Thoubal due to their non-corporation. He prays that the

bail application may be rejected.

[8] Mr. L.Diko, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2

(complainant) namely S. Kunjabihari Singh in AB No. 47 of 2022 states that

the complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the complainant is for

forgery and the same photographs with the complainant holding license

gun in 2022 was already filed in criminal case before the Ld. CJM, Thoubal

Page 15 in 2020. The petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hand and

hence, their application may be rejected.

[9] Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5/

complainant (S. Kunjabihari Singh) in AB No. 84 of 2019, submits that the

whole allegation of the complainant is established by a report dated

24.09.2021 submitted by the AS & SO-VII TBL to the Director Settlement

and Land Revenue, Manipur stating that the complainant name was

cancelled from the land record by the revenue officials and private accused

by fabricating documents. He prays that the bail application may be

rejected.

[10] Considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the

parties, perused the documents on record and the provisions of law in the

regard.

[11] It is seen that the present cases are arising out of property

dispute between the complainant and the petitioners. The allegation is that

the complainant name has been deleted from the land record by the

petitioners in connivance with the revenue officers stealthily.

[12] Last FIR being FIR No. 127(7)2022 TBL PS U/S. 447/307/34

IPC is the outcome of the property dispute where there is allegation of

trespassing and attempt to murder. While the complaint lodged by the

complainant has been registered after 3 months, the complaint lodged by

the petitioners against the complainant were never taken up by the police.

[13] Materials attracting Section 307 IPC are lacking in the present

case.

Page 16 [14] This Court is of the opinion that investigation can be

conducted without taking the petitioner into custodial interrogation.

Moreover, the Revenue Officers have already been granted anticipatory

bail by the various orders of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal. In view of

the above obsevations, the bail applications are allowed. In case of arrest

the petitioners be released on bail with PR bond of each Rs. 50,000/- and

with a surety of each like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

in each of the FIRs i.e. (1) FIR Nos. 9(11)2021 VGL. PS U/Ss 120-B r/w

420IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988, (2) FIR No. 115(12)2019 TBL

PS U/S 193/205/209/468/420/120-B, IPC and (3) FIR No. 127(7)2022 TBL

PS U/S. 447/307/34 IPC subject to the conditions that:

(a) The petitioners shall furnish personal bond of Rs.

50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one surety

each of the like amount.

(b) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.

(c) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or

influence witnesses.

(d) The petitioners shall not leave Manipur without

permission of Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal.

(e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the

respondent police is entitled to take appropriate action

against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Page 17 [15] It is made clear that the observations made in this order are

limited to the question of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the

merits of the complaint/case have not been delved into.

[16]                Bail Applications are allowed.

[17]                Send a copy of this order to the OC, Thoubal PS and

Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police Station for information.

JUDGE

FR/NFR joshua

KH. JOSHUA Digitally signed by KH.

                    JOSHUA MARING
         MARING     Date: 2023.04.17
                    09:43:08 +05'30'




                                                                        Page 18