Point of Law: Criminal Law - Seeking to grant 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.

JUDGMENT :

[1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to grant anticipatory bail in connection with FIR case No.23(10)2020 of Women Police Station, Thoubal registered under Sections 366, 417, 376 and 34 IPC.

[2] The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2020 at 4.30 p.m., the complainant Laishram Sushmita Devi of Khangabok Cherapur Bamol Leikai lodged a written complaint to women Police Station, Thoubal stating that on 18.11.2019 at 5.15 pm, she was kidnapped by the petitioner Ningthoujam Dijen Singh of Lhangabok Lamlong Tangkha Leikai, Lamlong Bazar along with his friends numbering 7/8 from backward way of Waikhom Mani Girl’s College, Thoubal. Thereafter, the petitioner threatened to kill her, if she discloses about the incident to her parents and he raped her without her consent on the false pretext of marrying her.

[3] According to the petitioner, he is serving as a Corporal in the Phalodi Air Force Station, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and he had affairs with the complainant since February, 2018. In order to arrive the destination of their love affairs, they agreed and decided to elope on 18.11.2019 at night around 9.00 pm. Accordingly, the complainant came out from her house at 9.00 p.m. on 18.11.2019 and met the petitioner while he was waiting near the gate ofthe complainant and as such the petitioner eloped with the complainant with full consent. On the same day, both are stayed for about two hours of the said night at the house of Laishram Sushil singh of Khangabok Tangkha Leikai, who is the maternal relative of the complainant and thereafter, both had continued to stay at the house of the petitioner located at Khangabok Tangkha Leikai.

[4] The case of the petitioner is that he used to frequently visit the house of the complainant and the parents of the complainant had admitted that the petitioner to become their son-in-law. On 19.11.2019, the uncle of the petitioner and other village elders visited the residence of the complainant and observed Nupi Haidokpa ceremony in accordance with Manipuri Hindu custom which is still in vogue amongst the Manipur Hindus and the same is still continuing. The uncle of the petitioner, local elders and parents of the complainant had jointly agreed and decided to perform the marriage of the complainant and the petitioner by fixing a date in the future after consultation with a good astrologer and also after performance of the annual grand feast of death ceremony of his grandfather which was to be held on 27.06.2020. Several times, the family of the petitioners and elders visited the house of the complainant and discussed about the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant. Thereafter, there arose a misconception to the family of the complainant, as they did not want to perform the marriage with the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has been staying outside of Manipur for his service and as such there is no possibility to return to Manipur for a long time except on his retirement from service.

[5] On 17.10.2020, the father of the complainant made a report orally to the Pradhan of Khangabok Part-III Gram Panchayat to settle the dispute between them. Accordingly, on 17.10.2020 there was a sitting at the residence of Pradhan at Khangabok Part-III with the local elders of both the parties and discussed the dispute. On that day, separation of the complainant from the petitioner; demand of Rs.20,00,000/- by the father of the complainant for her livelihood and the protest of the father of the petitioner to the demand of the father of the complainant and also allowing him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the father of the complainant were discussed. Due to difference of opinion, the matter was not settled between them on that day. While that being so, after a lapse of 11 months from the date of elopement, the complainant lodged a complaint under the influence of her parents and relatives alleging that she was kidnapped on 18.11.2019 by the petitioner and for