Manipur High Court
Thokchom Sanathoi Singh vs Officer-In-Charge on 27 November, 2023
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
AB No. 2 of 2022
Thokchom Sanathoi Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o Thokchom
Ibochouba Singh of Heirok Pt. II Thokchom Leikai, Gram Panchayat,
P.O. & P.S. Heirok, Thoubal District, Manipur-795148.
...... Petitioner/Applicant
- Versus -
Officer-in-Charge, Heirok Police Station, Thoubal, Manipur-795148.
........Respondent/s
with
AB No. 3 of 2022
Thokchom Shyamchand Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Angou Singh
of Heirok Pt. II Wanjing, Thoubal District, Manipur-795148.
.....Petitioner/Applicant
-vs-
Officer-in-Charge, Heirok Police Station, Thoubal, Manipur-795148.
.....Respondent
with
Dhruba Thokchom, aged about 44 years, S/o Thokchom Nimaichand
Singh of Heirok Pt. II Thokchom Leikai, Thoubal, Wanjing, P.O. & P.S.
Heirok, Thoubal District, Manipur-795148
....Petitioner/Applicant
-vs-
Officer-in-Charge, Heirok Police Station, Thoubal, Manipur-795148.
.....Respondent
AB No. 2 of 2022; 3 of 2022 & 4 of 2022 Page 1
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioners :: Mr. Ch. Ngongo, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Ms. S. Gangarani, Advocate.
For the Respondent :: Mr. H. Samarjit, PP for the State.
Date of Hearing :: 17.08.2023
Date of Judgment and Order :: 27.11.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
S. Gangarani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Samarjit,
learned PP for the State respondent. Since these bail applications are
related to the same FIR, they are heard together and being disposed of by
this common order.
[2] The brief fact of the case is that on 21.12.2021 at around 9:25
pm, some unknown persons numbering about 200/300 comprising of males
and females assembled and formed an unruly mob at Heirok Part-II Bazar
area by violating the promulgation orders of District Magistrate, Thoubal
imposed in all areas of Heirok Village. The unruly mob turned violent by
holding deadly weapons like spades, iron rods, dao, wooden legs, etc. and
started pelting stones among themselves and heard gun shots. As a result,
some individuals received injuries and evacuated to Hospital for medical
treatment. Acting on the information, a suo-motu case under FIR No.
31(12)2021 HRK-PS U/S 147/148/149/188/326 IPC & 25(1-C) Arms Acts
was registered.
AB No. 2 of 2022; 3 of 2022 & 4 of 2022 Page 2
[3] On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mr. Khundongbam
Shyambi Singh another FIR No. 38(12)2021 HRK-PS U/S 457/307/34 IPC &
25 (1-C) Arms Act was registered. In the complaint dated 22.12.2021 lodged
by the complainant, namely Mr. Khundongbam Shyambi Singh, the names
of the 3 (three) petitioners were specifically mentioned. Apprehending arrest,
the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present applications
under Section 438 Cr.PC praying for pre-arrest bail.
[4] Vide separate orders dated 07.03.2022, this Court granted
interim protection to the petitioners with the following conditions:
(i) In the event of his release in connection with the
aforesaid FIR, the petitioner should be released on
interim bail on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 100000/-
(Rupees one lakh) with one surety to the satisfaction of
the arresting authority.
(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and
make available for interrogation by I.O. of the case as
and when required;
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to
disclose such facts of the Court or to any other authority;
(iv) The petitioner should not leave the State without prior
permission of the arresting authority; and
AB No. 2 of 2022; 3 of 2022 & 4 of 2022 Page 3
(v) Liberty is given to the police to make any appropriate
application for modification/recalling this order, if the
petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this
Court.
[5] Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits
that the petitioners did not participate in the mob and they are the cousins of
the complainant and due to personal enmity, their names have been
included in the complaint. He further submits that the petitioners were not
involved and they were present there to pacify the mob consisting of
members of BJP and Congress on both sides. The 2 (two) FIRs are arising
out of the same incident and to be clubbed together. Hence, only one bail
application each is filed against both the FIRs. It is stated that the petitioners
apprehended arrest in connection with the present case and prayed for
granting pre-arrest bail and to undertake that they will comply with all the
directions imposed by this Court.
[6] Mr. H. Samarjit, learned PP, submits that the petitioners
involved in the mob and bullet injury was sustained by the son of the
complainant. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to establish
the true facts of the case and involvement of other accused persons. It is
stated that as per the medical report issued by RIMS, Hospital, the nature of
injury sustained is grievous one caused by fire weapon. Learned PP prays
that the bail application may be rejected for proper and smooth investigation
of the case.
AB No. 2 of 2022; 3 of 2022 & 4 of 2022 Page 4
[7] Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and materials on record.
[8] As reported in the newspaper report, there was a clash
between BJP and Congress workers and son of the complainant got
sustained bullet injury. But from the bail objection report, it is not clear who
fired the bullet and who is the owner of the gun. On perusal of the bail
objection report, it is seen that as directed by this Court, the petitioners
appeared before the investigating officer and their statements have been
recorded. Nothing specific is mentioned in the report against the petitioners.
Since the petitioners are co-operating with the investigation and in absence
of any concrete material against them at this stage of investigation, this Court
is inclined to allow the bail applications.
[9] Accordingly, the interim bail granted vide order dated
07.03.2022 are made absolute on the same condition. Bail applications are
disposed of accordingly.
[10] Send a copy of this order to the O.C. Heirok PS for information.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
joshua
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2023.11.30
MARING 13:07:22 +05'30'
AB No. 2 of 2022; 3 of 2022 & 4 of 2022 Page 5
