Wahengbam Johnson Singh vs Officer-In-Charge
2025 Latest Caselaw 111 Mani

Manipur High Court

Wahengbam Johnson Singh vs Officer-In-Charge on 24 July, 2025

Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma

Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma

                                                               Item No. 3-4


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                       AT IMPHAL

                           AB No. 21 of 2025 with
                           Crl.M.C. No. 27 of 2025

       Wahengbam Johnson Singh
                                                       .....Petitioner/s

                                    - Versus -

       Officer-in-Charge, Bishnupur Police Station & Anr.
                                                    .... Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

Order

24.07.2025

[1] Heard Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP assisted by Mrs. RK. Emily, learned Dy. G.A. for the State respondent No. 1.

[2] By the present petition, the petitioner approached this Court by way of application under Section 482 of BNSS for granting pre-arrest bail on the apprehension that the personnel of Bishnupur Police Station have been calling repeatedly on a purported compliant filed by respondent No. 2 with regard to transaction of some money. [3] On perusal of the record, nothing is on record to show that the police have issued summoned call for the petitioner to the police station.

[4] It is settled law that the judgment of the constitution bench in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. State of Punjab: (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. :(2020) 5 SCC 1 that anticipatory bail is also maintainable in absence of FIR, if the apprehension to arrest is left out. [5] However, on perusal of the case record, this Court does not find any material for likelihood of immediate arrest of the petitioner and at the same time, no FIR is registered against the petitioner. [6] In the circumstances, the bail application is disposed of with a direction that in case of arrest of the petitioner is required, 5 (five) days notice be issued to the petitioner to explain his case. [7] With this observation, bail application is disposed of. Cril.M.C. No. 27 of 2025 is accordingly closed. [8] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

                                                               JUDGE

        Kh. Joshua Maring



KH.           Digitally signed
              by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA        MARING
              Date: 2025.07.25
MARING        10:08:05 +05'30'