IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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.259(8)2019 on the file of the Porompat Police Station registered under Section 353, 354, 307 and 506 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.8.2019 the petitioner used criminal force to deter the complainant from discharging her duty, tried to outrage her modesty and also attempted to murder her. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the complainant, the second respondent police registered an FIR Case No.259(8)2019 under Sections 253/354/307 and 506 IPC against the petitioner. Apprehending arrest in the hands of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail.

4. Opposing the petition, the second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on 26.8.2019 at about 4.10 p.m., while the complainant was at her office room at the office of Seed Analyst, she heard the petitioner quarrelling with staff Kangabam Keinahanbi Devi and started using hot words and shouting that he will kill all the staff by cutting into pieces. At that time, the complainant came out from her room to call one of her staff Thockom Memtombi Devi, where she saw the petitioner scolding Keinahanbi. The complainant asked the petitioner why are you shouting and scolding the staff to which he angrily replied to the complainant with harsh words and loud voice that after the complainant had joined as Seed Analyst, all the staff are not in good relation as they were before. Thereafter, the complainant went inside her room. After a while, the petitioner entered the complainant's room and started shouting her by using harsh and strong words that she broke all the good relation amongst the staff after she joined the office and, thereafter, he left the room. Later, when the complainant enquired her staff Keinahanbi, she reported that the petitioner by showing sword scolded her. Since the petitioner had an enmity with the complainant and he had threatened by holding sword which is a dangerous weapon, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dissatisfied with the order dated 22.8.2019 passed by the complainant, the employees lodged a complaint to the petitioner, who is a President of the All Manipur Agriculture Department Employees Welfare Organisation to redress their grievances. Accordingly, the petitioner made an oral complaint to the petitioner, who was functioning as Seed Analyst without entering into her office room. On the contrary, the complainant stated that the petitioner entered into her room and used harsh words and threatened her by showing sword, which is totally false.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no cogent materials against the petitioner to 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. In fact, on 29.8.2019, the staff members of the office of the Seed Analyst have given statement before the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East stating that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant.

7. The learned counsel urged that since the complainant had lodged a complaint and FIR has been registered based on it, the petitioner might be arrested by the second 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. Thus, a prayer is made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that not only the petitioner had entered into the room of the complainant and shouted her, but als