Manipur High Court

N Popilal Singh vs Officer In Charge City P.S on 2 May, 2024

                                                                       Item. 25
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                              AT IMPHAL


                              AB No. 50 of 2023


N Popilal Singh
                                                              ...Petitioner/s
       - Versus -

Officer in Charge City P.S.
                                                           ...Respondent/s

                        B E F OR E
         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
02.05.2024

[1]          Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel assisted by Md.
Abdul Baqee Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.
Devenanda, learned Addl. AG assisted by Ms. N. Jyotsana, learned counsel
appearing for the State respondent.


[2]          The present petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 438 of the
Cr.P.C, 1973 praying for releasing the accused/petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest made by the Police personnel of City Police Station, Imphal
West    in   connection   with   FIR    No.   62(10)2023     City   P.S.   u/s
147/149/188/353/325 IPC later added section 307/332/511 IPC on the
ground that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation carried out
by the Police personnel of the City Police Station, Manipur and shall abide
by the condition/conditions imposed by the Hon''ble Court under relevant
provisions of the Section 438 Cr.P.C, 1973.


[3]          Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr. counsel for the petitioner
undertook to make the accused/petitioner appear either before the Trial
Court or the I.O of the FIR case as and when required to do so.
 [4]           Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG submits counter affidavit
to the petition of the petitioner as referred to by the Ld. Addl. AG, para Nos.
5, 6 & 7 of the counter affidavit are reproduced herein below;
          "5. That, the answering deponent begs to submit that the said unlawful
          assembly was organized by the 10 Political Parties Violating the duly
          promulgated prohibitory orders u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. vide Order No.
          DMIW)/1/57/CON/2009-P(III) dtd. 8/10/2023 of Hon' ble ADM-Imphal
          West. The undernoted accused person, N. Popilal Singh is also one of
          the main conspirators of the unlawful assembly and he personally
          participated in the unlawful assembly as a leader. The accused person,
          A. Deben Singh and co-accused, N. Popilal Singh even resorted in
          assaulting the police officers on duty thereby obstructing the duties of
          the police. Even though the violators were very violent and assaulted the
          Police Officers on duty, the state force tried to control the situation by
          only means of persuasion, without using any physical force. The
          accused person namely N. Popilal Singh and co-accused i.e. Achoibam
          Deben Singh started to create an unlawful incident and they provoked,
          abetted, and instigated other agitators and N. Popilal Singh started
          assaulting the police officer with the help of other co-accused persons
          resulting hurt and physical injuries of the Police Officer.

               Further, it is submitted that the fact of case is that while performing
          the official duties of the police in the broad day light, the said Police
          officers were deterred and obstructed by the accused person namely N.
          Popilal Singh and A. Deben Singh along with their associates. They
          started threatening and assaulting the public servant and further tried to
          snatch the service gun as well as wireless set of the complainant. The
          accused person even instigated other agitators and later the mob even
          attempted to murder the public servant by pushing, bumping and
          assaulting him on a Police vehicle which is clearly seen in a viral video
          and which was spread in social media platform "Reporter Diary. From
          the above facts, it clearly shows that the safety of even a law enforcing
          agency i.e., police officers is not spared in the fact situation, the safety of
          the people of Manipur living in the state will be compromised if the
          accused is not arrested. Doing such illegal criminal act to a law enforcing
          agency l.e., to a police officer and from the above facts cited, if the
          accused person is granted Anticipatory Bail by the Hon'ble Court in this
          initial stage of investigation then such act will encourage the culprits to
          continue their crimes and violent acts in the future thereby disturbing the
          law and order situation in the state which is a serious matter to be
          considered by this Hon'ble Court.

          6. That, the answering deponent begs to submit that during the further
          course of investigation, house searches were made to arrest the
          undernoted accused person N. Popilal Singh (the present petitioner) on
          different dates and times but not fruitful, as the accused person fled
          away/absconded from his house as well as from other related dwelling
          places of the accused person. Further, on visiting the house of the
          accused person, many local Meira Paibis and other associates again
          deterred the Police Officials from discharging the duties of the police by
          means of unlawful force/Gherao, as well as, to provoke another mob in
          the area/locality of the accused person. Intimation was also made to the
          family members of the accused person to co-operate in the case but still
          no positive response from any of the family members was received and
             accused does not co-operate the I.O. of the case and he is
            absconding/evading Police summons to appear.

            7. That, the answering deponent begs to submit that being a political
            person and a man of position he is likely to create another nuisance or
            commit another serious crime by organizing such incident in the near
            future and the custodial interrogation of the accused person is highly
            required to ascertain the fact and circumstances of why he assaulted,
            provoked to create such incident and even attempt to murder the public
            servant l.e. a police officer who was in full uniform performing his official
            duty and how accused with the mob even tore police uniform in front of
            everyone. In this initial stage of investigation, if the accused person is
            granted Anticipatory Bail, he may elude that he is well protected and
            insulated by a pre arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated."


[5]             Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG objected to the prayer to
make the interim order absolute and relying upon the following Hon'ble
Supreme Court's judgment in support of his case which is reproduced herein
below;
         1. (2012) 4 SCC 379; para No. 19.
            "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are
            required to b satisfies 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 is prima facie of the view
            that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not
            misuse his liberty."

         2. (2018) 7 SCC 731; para No. 6.
            "6. This Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan has referred to a
            contention based on the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia and yet it
            has taken the view that the protection under Section 438 is only till the
            investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. To quote paras 14
            and 18 to 21: (J.J. Mannan case, SCC pp. 682-84)

            "14. Referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh
            Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, wherein the application of Section 438
            CrPC had been considered in detail, Mr Dutta submitted that the said
            provision had been interpreted to be a beneficent provision relating to
            personal liberty guaranteed under Section 21 of the Constitution. Mr
            Dutta submitted that the Constitution Bench had observed that since
            denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should
            lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of
            Section 438 CrPC.

            *

18. Furthermore, it has also been consistently indicated that no blanket order could be passed under Section 438 CrPC to prevent the accused from being arrested at all in connection with the case. To avoid such an eventuality it was observed in Adri Dharan Das case that anticipatory bail is given for a limited duration to enable the accused to surrender and to obtain regular bail. The same view was reiterated in Salauddin case wherein it was, inter alia, observed that anticipatory bail should be of limited duration only and primarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration, the court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge- sheet is submitted.

19. The object of Section 438 CrPC has been repeatedly explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. But at the same time the provisions of Section 438 CrPC cannot also be invoked to exempt the accused from surrendering to the court after the investigation is complete and if charge-sheet is filed against him. Such an interpretation would amount to violence to the provisions of Section 438 CrPC, since even though a charge-sheet may be filed against an accused and charge is framed against him, he may still not appear before the court at all even during the trial.

20. Section 438 CrPC contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a mechanism for an accused to be released on bail should he be arrested during the period of investigation. Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge- sheet, the accused has to surrender to the custody of the court and pray for regular bail. On the strength of an order granting anticipatory bail, an accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing before the trial court.

21. If what has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that Respondent 1 has never appeared before the trial court is to be accepted, it will lead to the absurd situation that charge was framed against the accused in his absence, which would defeat the very purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 240 CrPC."

[6] Gone through the petition of the petitioner and counter affidavit filed by the State respondent and also the impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2023 passed in Cril. Misc. (AB) No. 76 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West.

[7] Since both the learned counsel for the parties admitted that the accused/petitioner are co-operating with the investigation of the FIR case and since the learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to make the appearance of the accused/petitioner whenever required either before the Trial Court or the I.O. of the FIR case, the interim bail order dated 02.11.2023 passed is made absolute and the accused/petitioner is directed to furnish a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the I.O of the FIR case with direction that the accused/petitioner should not leave the State of Manipur without prior permission from the Court and should co-operate in the investigation of the FIR case and appear before the I.O of the FIR case and before the Trial Court as and when required, if any of conditions is violated by the petitioner, the respondents police are at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.

[8] Accordingly, the present Anticipatory Bail No. 50 of 2023 is disposed of.

[9] Copy of this order may be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.

[10] Send an extract copy of this order to the Trial Court.

JUDGE

Lucy

LUCY Digitally by LUCY signed

GURUM GURUMAYUM Date: