SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Manipur) 105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Kh.Nobin Singh, J.
Kh. Ziaul Haque - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur - Resopndent
A.B. No. 9 of 2015
Decided On : 17-08-2015

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Jalaluddin, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.S. Reisang, Sr. Govt. Advocate assisted by Shyam Sharma, Govt. Advocate.

The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation in certain cases and highlighted the factors to be considered in granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. - 366/368/34 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. The court also referred to the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharastra (2011) 1 SCC 694 and enumerated the factors to be considered by the court in granting anticipatory bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a police constable, filed for anticipatory bail after being accused of forcibly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman. The victim's statement and witness accounts supported the allegations. The petitioner's conduct during the investigation was also questioned.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not make out a case for anticipatory bail and that his custodial interrogation was required to ascertain the true facts of the case. The court emphasized that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the kidnapping and sexual assault, the credibility of the victim's statement, and the petitioner's conduct during the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of merit in the petitioner's case for anticipatory bail, the need for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner's conduct during the investigation.

Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application was dismissed, and the interim protection granted earlier was vacated. The petitioner was directed to surrender within a week from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Md. Jalaluddin, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Reisang, Sr. Govt. Advocate assisted by Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. The above petition/application has been filed by the petitioner under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail and also ad interim bail for the end of justice.

3. This is a new provision made on the recommendation of the Law Commission. Under the old code, there was no specific provision for grant of anticipatory bail. The first part of the section sets out the conditions under which a person can make an application for anticipatory bail. The second part confers jurisdiction on the High Court or the Court of Session.

4. This is an exceptional power and can be exercised only in exceptional cases and not in all general cases. The considerations governing the exercise of discretion for granting anticipatory bail are materially different from those of an application for bail. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharastra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the historical perspective, scope and ambit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and after analyzing the various judgments and guidelines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the following factors and parameters that can be taken into consideration by the Court while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

"(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern.

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall be considered in the matter of grant of bail 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 bail."

5.1. According to the petitioner, he is now serving as Constable in the Police Department, Government of Manipur and is presently posted at Heirok Police Station, Thoubal District. The petitioner having eloped Ms. Mastana, D/o Md. Junab Ali, Heitroipokpi Village on 19-06-2015, is engaged for marriage with her. On 23-06-2015 at about 7:30 p.m. one Ms. Alina, the victim, aged about 22 years, said to be the daughter of one Md. Alaoddin, aged about 60 years from Sangaiyumpham Nungpou, P.S. Thoubal came to his house and informed his parents that she came there to be his wife and on hearing the news about it, the parents of the victim made an oral report to the loca












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top