Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Ngangom Iboton Singh
Versus
Union Territory of Manipur
Criminal Misc. Appln. Case No. 15 of 1967
Decided On : 01-04-1967
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 498 - BAIL - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF BAIL - DISCRETION OF COURT - JUDICIAL EXERCISE - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - CASE WHERE OFFENCE IS PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were arrested for allegedly committing murder, dacoity, and other offenses. The first petitioner was arrested about a month after the occurrence, while the second petitioner was arrested on the day following the occurrence, and a sten-gun and 2 live bullets were seized from his house.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first petitioner was entitled to be released on bail as there was no reason to discriminate against him when other accused persons who were similarly mentioned in the FIR were released on bail. However, the court refused to release the second petitioner on bail as there was reasonable ground for believing that he was guilty of the offense punishable with death.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion of the court in granting bail should be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The court considered various factors in determining whether to grant bail, including the nature of the offense, the strength of the evidence against the accused, the likelihood of the accused appearing for trial, and the possibility of the accused tampering with witnesses.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the first petitioner subject to certain conditions, but refused to grant bail to the second petitioner.
This is an application filed by the petitioners under Section 498 Criminal Procedure Code to release them on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Thoppa Singh of Sekta Village lodged a complaint in Lamlai Police Station in Manipur District alleging that at about 9 P. M. on 27-8-1966 the petitioners and some more persons armed with firearms, daos, lathis and other deadly weapons entered into his house to commit murder, dacoity and other offences, that he raised alarm, that on hearing the alarm the villagers rushed to the spot and surrounded the culprits and that, having no passage for their escape, the culprits opened fire continuously upon the villagers resulting in the death of one villager by name Salam Komol Singh and injuries to 3 other villagers. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the following day one Pakchao Singh, one of the dacoits was found lying dead, that the first petitioner Ngangom Iboton Singh was arrested on 18-9-1966 and that the second petitioner Sagosem Chaoba Singh was arrested on 30-8-1966 when a sten-gun and 2 live bullets were also seized from his house and that on the day next after the occurrence 10 empty cases of 9 M.M. bullets were seized from the scene of offence. The case is said to be under investigation in F. I. R. case 98(8)66 under Sections 302, 307 and 398 Indian Penal Code, as the seized fire-arms amunition etc. were sent to the Arms Expert for examination.
3. 4 more accused were also impleaded in the case. Out of them, 3 were released on bail by the Magistrate First Class, Imphal. One was released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Manipur, by his order dated 8-3-1967 in his Criminal Misc. Case 75/1967. The Learned Sessions Judge refused to release the petitioners on bail. So, the petitioners filed the present petition for bail.
4. The Learned Sessions Judge states in his order that the first petitioners name was mentioned in the F. I. R., that his name was also mentioned by 3 injured persons and that though he was arrested about one month after the occurrence, there are no grounds for releasing him on bail. But, the Learned Sessions Judge released another person whose name was also mentioned in the F. I. R. and whose name was also mentioned by some of the injured persons. So, the case of the first petitioner stands on the same footing as the case of other accused persons, who were released on bail.
5. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, besides the fact that his name was mentioned in the F. I. R. there is prima facie incriminating material against him. A sten-gun and 2 live bullets were seized from his possession. So, there is reasonable ground for believing that he was one of the participants in the daring dacoity and murder committed in the night of 27-8-1966. As such, he cannot be released on bail.
6. The Learned Counsel of the petitioners urged vehemently that both the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail and relied on a number of decisions, which lay down the principles which should guide the Court in dealing with an application for bail. One of the principles is that generally it is the rule to allow bail, rather than to refuse bail and bail ought not to be held as punishment. Vide Nagendra Nath v. Emperor, AIR 1924 Cal 476, Emperor v. Gulam Mohammad, AIR 1925 Lah 510, and Ram Chandra v. The State, 1953 Cr. LJ 17 : (AIR 1952 Madh Bha 203). In Sant Ram v. State, AIR 1952 J and K 28 : 1952 Cr LJ 1223 it was held that the law presumes an accused person to be innocent till his guilt is proved and that he should be allowed opportunity to look after his own case, unless the circumstances are such that he should not be released on bail. In Ram Chand v. Emperor, 30 Cr LJ 1129 : (AIR 1929 Lah 284), Kripa Shankar v. Emperor, 48 Cr LJ 941 : AIR 1948 All 26, Champalal v. State, AIR 1952 Madh Bha 189 (FB) and The State v. Shantilal AIR 1955 Raj 141 it was held that the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 498, Criminal Procedure Code uncontroll
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
