IMPORTANT POINT
The nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail are crucial factors in determining the outcome of an anticipatory bail application.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the criminal case under FIR No.47(11)2021 on the file of Sekmai Police Station registered under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned H. Samarjit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2021 at 7.20 a.m., one Sagolsem Bidyasagar Singh of Awang Wabagai Makha reported that on 19.11.2021, his mother Sagolsem (O) Mukhara Devi had lodged a complaint about the missing of his father Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh, who was missing since 3.30 p.m. on 18.11.2021. But, on 21.11.2021 at around 7.00 a.m. the dead body of his father was recovered from the river bed of Imphal river near Awang Wabagai Awang Leikai with multiple injury marks on his forehead. It is suspected that, his father might have been killed and absconded at the place by some unknown miscreants.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 22.11.2021 some police personnel of Sekmai Police Station visited the respective houses of the petitioners and instructed them to come to the police station for interrogation in connection with the criminal case. Accordingly, the petitioners went to the police station and they were interrogated one after another and thereafter in the late evening, they were allowed to leave the police station. Again on 1.12.2021, some police personnel of Sekmai Police Station visited the house of the petitioners 1 to 3 during their absence and warned the family members of the petitioners that they should appear before the police station otherwise they would be in trouble.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that on 3.12.2021 when the petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer, they were interrogated and during interrogation, the first petitioner disclosed that her husband Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh was a drunkard and that her husband abused the entire family members including herself and her sons after consuming liquor most of the time. Thus, she along with her sons attempted to prevent her husband from leaving the house so as to abstain from mingling with bad companies in the locality. While so, the Investigating Officer falsely registered a case against the petitioners that the deceased Sagolsem Nilakanta Singh was killed by the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and in fact, they are innocent. The post mortem report opined that the death was caused due to intracranial hemorrhage associated with fracture of skull bones resulting from blunt force injury to the head. He would submit the petitioners are very much concerned with the proper investigation of the crime and to punish the real perpetrators of the crime. The petitioners 1 and 2 being wife and son of the deceased continued their search for the truth and they ascertained some individuals from the locality, who had consumed liquor with the deceased on the day of his disappearance.

7. The learned counsel next submitted that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners had committed the offence charged against them. The petitioners have not committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. In the event of their arrest by the police in connection with the above referred case, the petitioners will face an irreparable loss and injury to their reputation in the society and their family members would suffer a lot. The petitioners may be caused and subjected to face a great loss if they are arrested by the police, besides it may malign their reputation in the society and at the same time, it may even cause much detriment to health and safety. He further submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioners and the accusations against them are false and concocted one.

8. The learned c