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 connection with the above referred FIR. Hence, this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case, for which he has been searched at his home in his absence. That apart, the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that he is now having reasonable apprehension to be arrested in connection with FIR No.36(3)2008. If the petitioner is arrested, then it will be very difficult for him to tolerate the hardships of the police as well as judicial custody, as he has to look after his family members by doing bricklaying work.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no cogent materials against the petitioner to implicate or array him as an accused and also there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner had committed the criminal acts as alleged in the FIR.

7. The learned counsel urged that since there is an apprehension, the petitioner might be arrested by the respondent police anytime and also there is apprehension that in the prevailing law and order situation of the State, there might be a danger to the life of the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel next submitted that by the interim order dated 8.8.2019, this Court directed the respondent police not to arrest the petitioner till 29.08.2019 and the said interim order continues till date. Thus, a prayer is made to grant regular anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the investigation reveals his involvement in the crime. Since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail and he is very much required for examination after arrest.

10. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

11. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not committed any offence and since the respondent police visited the house of the petitioner and enquired about him and also directed the petitioner to appear in connection with the FIR No.36(3)2008 before Mayang Imphal Police Station, the petitioner apprehending his arrest in the above referred FIR. According to the petitioner, there is no material against him which can show that prima facie the petitioner had committed the acts alleged against him.

12. Admittedly, the allegation levelled against the petitioner cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same would involve oral and documentary evidence.

13. On a perusal of the FIR, this Court finds that the said FIR was registered on 17.3.2008 for the commission of murder with common intention by some unknown person/armed person/ miscreant. Admitt