Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Laishram Suresh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur - Respondent
Cril. Petition No. 44 of 2021
Decided On : 24-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. M.Gunedhor, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. M.Rarry, Special PP, for the Respondent

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an accused is not entitled to statutory bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. as a matter of right, and the provision does not confer an indefeasible right upon an accused to seek release on bail. The court emphasized the need for the Magistrate to exercise discretion and may refuse bail by recording reasons in writing.

Headnote:
Bail - Interpretation of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. - [Bail] - [Interpretation of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C.] - [Section 437(6) Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the scope and interpretation of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., emphasizing that an accused is not entitled to statutory bail under this provision as a matter of right. The provision does not confer an indefeasible right upon an accused to seek release on bail, and the Magistrate may refuse bail by recording reasons in writing. The court highlighted various case laws and legal precedents to support its interpretation, ultimately concluding that the accused were entitled to bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and that the learned Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the bail order.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were involved in a case related to assault on government officials during the COVID-19 pandemic. The State of Manipur filed an application to quash the bail order granted to the accused under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court granted bail to the accused, but the learned Sessions Judge set aside the bail order, leading to the accused filing a Criminal Petition to challenge the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were entitled to bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and that the learned Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the bail order. The court held that the seriousness of the offences alleged and the punishment prescribed were not sufficiently weighty enough to warrant the continued incarceration of the accused pending the trial. The court also noted that the accused had been at large for some time without breaching any bail conditions.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and whether the accused were entitled to bail as a matter of right under this provision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., the seriousness of the alleged offences, the absence of evidence of tampering with witnesses or evidence by the accused, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was allowed, setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and restoring the bail order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. In exercise of power under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-I, Manipur, granted bail to the accused in Cril. (P) Case No.2 of 2020 {Ref: FIR No.14(04) 2020 on the file of Wangoi Police Station}, vide order dated 20.03.2021 in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No.5 of 2021. Bail was granted as more than sixty days had elapsed after the commencement of the trial and both the accused had remained in custody during that period. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Manipur filed an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., in Cril. Misc. Case No.100 of 2021, before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, to quash/set aside the bail order dated 20.03.2021. By order dated 20.11.2021, the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, held that the accused were not entitled to be released on bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and set aside the bail order dated 20.03.2021. Assailing the said order, the accused filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. By order dated 26.11.2021, this Court suspended paragraph No.22 of the impugned order dated 20.11.2021 till the next date. Thereby, the learned Sessions Judge had directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court within one week, i.e., by 26.11.2021. The interim order was extended thereafter from time to time. The last such extension was on 15.03.2022, operative till 11.04.2022. However, the accused are admittedly still at large as on date.

3. Heard Mr. M.Gunedhor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused; and Mr. M.Rarry, learned Special PP, appearing for the respondent.

4. Earlier, Mr. M.Rarry, learned Special PP, had raised the issue that this Criminal Petition is not maintainable in law. Upon considering the objections raised by him, a learned Judge of this Court passed order dated 29.12.2021, rejecting the objections raised as to maintainability and directing the matter to be listed for hearing on merits. This order has attained finality. The contention of Mr. M.Rarry, learned Special PP, that the issue of maintainability of this petition should again be revisited, therefore, stands rejected.

5. Facts, to the extent relevant, may be nut-shelled thus:

After the onset of Covid-19 virus in India and the imposition of a nationwide lock down in March, 2020, there was a large scale hoarding and black-marketing of petroleum products. Officials of the Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department (CAF&PD), Government of Manipur, were given the responsibility of inspecting petroleum outlets across the State under the Disaster Management Act, Essential Services Maintenance Act, etc. H. Bobby Singh, Civil Supply Inspector, CAF&PD, along with L.Ibotombi Singh, Area Officer, CAF&PD, were assigned the duty of checking oil pumps located in Imphal East and Imphal West areas. On 17.04.2020, at about 9.30 pm, these officials visited Heibok Filling Station KSK located at Naran Konjin in Imphal West and found that it was being run by two brothers, viz., Laishram Suresh Singh and Laishram Surjit, the accused. The officials allegedly met with resistance from them and were physically assaulted. H. Bobby Singh, Civil Supply Inspector, sustained grievous injuries on his nose and leg. In consequence, FIR No.14(04) 2020 was registered under Sections 353, 326, 307 and 34 IPC along with Section 25(1-C) of the Arms Act, 1959. This FIR was registered on 18.04.2020 at 6.30 pm upon the complaint made by L. Ibotombi Singh, Area Officer, CAF & PD. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that the oil pump, Heibok Filling Station KSK, at Naran Konjin, was allotted to Smt. Khaidem (O) Sushila Devi, w/o late Khaidem Gojendro Singh, a police officer who had died in the line of duty. The trade license was also issued in her name but the business was being run by the two brothers, viz., the accused. Thereupon, FIR No.19(05) 2020 WGI PS was registered against them on 09.05.2020 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC along wit