The High Court Of Manipur recently comprising of a bench of Justice M.V. Muralidaran observed that in the circumstance of the investigation going in the right way and limited allegations levelled against petitioners, if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, no prejudice would be caused either to the victim or the prosecution. (Thokchom Thai Singh vs The Officer-In-Charge )
Facts of the Case
The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Khetrimayum Chaoba Singh reported to the officer-in-charge of Kakching Police Station that his minor daughter Jusiepriya Kshetrimayum, aged 15 years, was called out from his house by one Naorem Prasanta Singh of Malom Tulihal Makha Leikai and she was kidnapped to be his wife, thereby Prasanta Singh committed sexual offence without her consent. The further case of the prosecution is that with the help of his friends namely (1) Oinam Rakesh Singh and (2) Thokchom Bonthai Singh, the accused Naorem Prasanta Singh kidnapped the victim.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to grant anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for the offenses punishable under Section 376, 366-A, 417 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
Contention of the Parties
The petitioners submitted that the names of the petitioners do not appear in the FIR, however, the police personnel came to house for causing arrest.
Secondly, it was submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioners involved in the commission of the crime alleged in the FIR.
Thirdly, it was submitted that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and they are always ready and willing to co-operate with the investigating officer of the case and that there is no question of hampering or tampering the prosecution witnesses and/or evidence when they are released on bail. It was further submitted that based on the statement of the victim, the respondent police is trying to implicate the petitioners in this case.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation so far done reveals that the petitioners had indeed participated in the commission of the crime and since the investigation is in full swing, the petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail.
He submitted that in fact the petitioner Thokchom Thai Singh approached the Sessions Court and filed anticipatory bail petition and the same was rejected on 04.12.2020. He further submitted since the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature, they are not entitled to get the anticipatory bail and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench noted, “Section 438 of Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates in the beginning statement itself that when a person has a reasonable apprehension to believe that they can be arrested on an accusation for commitment of a non-bailable offence, they can move the High Court or the Court of Sessions for grant of an anticipatory bail. The power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised by the Court in very exceptional cases. The Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause and a reasonable ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 Cr.P.C. protects the right to life and personal liberty of such persons by providing them with a remedy against frivolous detention. In a country where rifts and rivalries are common, its citizens should have a remedy which prevents disgracing their right to life and personal liberty.”
The Court referred to the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another [(2016) 1 SCC 152] and observed, “ As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. It should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case in consonance with the legislative intention.”
The bench further noted, “The law is well settled that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible, but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
The Court after perusing the materials available on record in the light of the above judgment opined, “Though the offence alleged in the instant case is grave in nature, which includes the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the petitioners were not named in the FIR. It is an admitted case that the petitioners herein have helped the accused for elopement. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioners are limited in nature of helping the accused and prima facie the said act of the petitioners would not attract the commission of offence under the POCSO Act in respect of the petitioners, in the interest of justice they are entitled to get the anticipatory bail”.
The bench therefore allowed the petition.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
