Back
2022 Supreme(Manipur) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Khangembam Loken Singh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
AB No. 76 of 2019
Decided On : 16-06-2022
Mr. N. Jotendro, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. H. Samarjit, PP, for the Respondents
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect personal liberty and the absence of evidence connecting the petitioners to the alleged crime, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 406/417/419/420/34 IPC - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with FIR No.11(7) of 2019, finding that they were not named accused and there was no evidence connecting them to the alleged crime. The court emphasized the need to protect personal liberty and considered the lack of proof of the petitioners' involvement in the serious financial offenses. The court imposed conditions for the bail, including appearance before the police for interrogation and non-tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail, fearing arrest in connection with an FIR alleging cheating and fraud by a person claiming to be an Additional Director, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. The prosecution contended that the petitioners were involved in collecting large sums of money from innocent individuals through false promises and impersonation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not named accused in the FIR and that there was no evidence connecting them to the alleged crime. The court also noted the lack of proof that the petitioners had actively connived with the main accused or other accused in cheating individuals. The court emphasized the need to protect personal liberty and the absence of any indication that the petitioners would flee the process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR alleging cheating and fraud. The court also considered the likelihood of the petitioners influencing witnesses during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners based on the lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged crime, the absence of proof of active connivance, and the need to protect personal liberty. The court also emphasized the duty to exercise jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen and the absence of any indication that the petitioners would flee the process of law.
Final Decision: The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including appearance before the police for interrogation and non-tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court ordered the petitioners to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a specified period before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Senapati, Manipur.
JUDGMENT
1. This application has been filed by the petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR No.11(7) of 2019 registered under Sections 406/417/419/420/34 IPC on the file of Mao Police Station.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.7.2019, the complainant Ng. Karaiba of Lairouching Village for herself and on behalf of 62 complainants reported that a person claiming as Anamika of Nongmaiching Tampak has dishonestly and fraudulently cheated them by (a) falsely promising to provide employment under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and had collected a sum of Rs.3,01,50,000/- from 62 individuals; (b) falsely promising to award housing loan and orphanage home construction project, an amount of Rs.1,00,58,000/- was collected from the complainant; (c) falsely promising to give available work project amounting to Rs.20.00 crore under the Ministry of Textiles, she had collected an amount of 1.20 crore from Elias Howmai and Ng.Kamba Sword; (d) falsely promising to give contract work for construction of community hall under the Ministry of Textiles, she had collected a sum of Rs.68,00,000/- from T.Moses and P.Karang and (e) falsely promising to award contract work for setting up cold storage under the Ministry of Textiles, she had collected a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- from T.Benjamin initially and later total amount collected goes upto Rs.86,00,000/-. According to prosecution, during the entire period while she cheated the complainants, she claimed as the Additional Director, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. Based on the complaint, an FIR under Sections 406/417/419/420/34 IPC was registered by Mao Police Station and subsequently transferred to CID Crime Branch, Manipur under the orders of the Director General of Police vide order dated 16.8.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while the petitioners were away from their respective homes for their day today activities on 13.10.2019, some policemen of Mao Police Station came at their residence and enquired about them and having found not available in the homes, left one xerox copy of FIR and asked the family members to come to Mao Police Station in connection with the investigation of FIR No.11(7).
4. The learned counsel further submitted that on perusal of the FIR by the petitioner, they came to know that the same was registered against one Anamika alias Rebika Suantak based on the complaint given by Ng.Karaiba and that the petitioners are not at all related with the said FIR. Of course, the said Anamika alias Rebika knows each other with the petitioners while doing contract work.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners has reasonable apprehension to be arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR and in the event they are arrested, then it will be very difficult for them to do their petty business and also doing sub-contract works for their livelihood, apart from the sufferings faced by their family members.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that on 23.10.2019, this Court granted interim direction to the respondent police not to arrest the petitioners and the said order is still continuing. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent and they are in no way connected with the alleged crime. In view of the above, a regular anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, as they are apprehending arrest from the hands of the fourth respondent police.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, the complainant was examined and the main accused was arrested. During interrogation, the accused admitted that she had committed the offence charged against her and stated that she is ready to pay back the money she collected from the complainants. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that during investigation it was found that the accused Anamika was collaborating with one Tapashini Devi of Sagolb
