Back
M. V. MURALIDARAN
Wahengbam Krishnakanta Singh @ Khoiba – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in event of arrest in connection with the FIR No.36(3)2008 on the file of Mayang Imphal Police Station registered under Section 302/34 IPC read with Section 25(1-C) of Arms Act read with Sections 17/18/19/20 of UA (P) Act.
2. Heard Mr. L. Romen Meetei, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail alleging that on 5.8.2019, when he was away from his residence for his duties and returned back to the house, the family members informed that the police personnel of Mayang Imphal Police Station came and enquired about the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not committed any crime, he did not take it as seriously. Later when he enquired through the local MLA, the petitioner has been informed to appear before Mayang Imphal Police Station in connection with FIR No.36(3)2008. According to the petitioner, he is not at all related to the said FIR. However, the petitioner is now having a reasonable apprehension to be arrested in connectio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in protecting personal liberty and the need for concrete facts and specific allegations in app....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for concrete facts and reasonable apprehension for granting anticipatory bail, and the importance of protecting personal liberty under Art....
Anticipatory bail denied due to prior criminal cases and recent FIR registration.
Anticipatory bail applications are maintainable even after issuance of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., provided there is apprehension of arrest.
Apprehension of arrest does not completely vanish away on issuance of notice of appearance under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and Courts cannot evade to entertain application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established is the requirement for concrete facts in applications for anticipatory bail and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
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
