IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of personal liberty, equality before the law, and the need to impose conditions to ensure the petitioner's availability for trial, regardless of the petitioner's nationality.

JUDGMENT

1. Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 17.4.2021 directing the learned Special Judge (ND&PS), Thoubal to issue warrant for arresting the petitioner and remand him into the judicial custody and to enlarge him on bail.

2. Miscellaneous Case No.3 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 390 Cr.P.C. read with Section 36-C of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substance Act to release him on bail.

3. Miscellaneous Case No.7 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner to call for the medical report/records of the petitioner maintained at the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.

4. Since the issue involved in these Miscellaneous Cases is one and the same, they were taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

5. Heard Mr.P.Tomcha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of Myanmar having his residence at Kawhmu Village, Moha Rangoon, Myanmar. He along with 9 others were initially arrested in connection with FIR No.94(08)2019 on the file of the Thoubal Police Station under Section 22(c)/29/60 of the ND & PS Act and after filing the charge sheet in Special Trial Case No.12 of 2020, the charge hearing of the case was done. By the order dated 20.01.2021, the trial Court discharged all the 9 accused from liabilities of the case, including the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.2.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that aggrieved by the discharge order, the respondent State preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2021 and by the order dated 17.4.2021, this Court stayed the order of discharge and issued an interim order directing the learned Special Judge, Thoubal to issue warrant for arresting the petitioner and remanding him into judicial custody. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has filed M.C.No.2 of 2021. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous (B) Case No.65 of 2021 under Section 390 Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge, Thoubal praying to release him on bail. However, the said application was dismissed on the ground that M.C.No.2 of 2021 is pending.

8. The learned counsel then submitted that since the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail failed to release the petitioner pursuant to the discharge order, he had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.6 of 2021 before the learned Special Judge, wherein the Superintendent of Police submitted his reply stating that the petitioner being a foreign national was released on 21.1.2021 and received by a team of District Police, Imphal East led by SI of Police, Heingang Police Station. However, concealing this fact, the Heingang Police arrested the petitioner by registering FIR No.10(01)2021 under Section 14A(a)/14(A)(b) of the Foreigner Act and he was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East and the learned CJM, Imphal East remanded him to police custody till 27.1.2021.

9. The learned counsel next submitted that by the order dated 27.1.2021, the petitioner was released on bail, however, he was kept in the safe custody of the Investigating Officer. In the meantime, charge sheet was filed in the said case and the petitioner was discharged from liabilities on 11.2.2021 with a direction to the police to hand over the petitioner to the Immigration Office or the concerned Department for doing the needful. Since the respondent Police failed to follow the direction, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.75 of 2021 before the CJM, Imphal East for contempt. By the order dated 19.4.2021, the said Miscellaneous Case was disposed of by the learned CJM, Imphal East forwarding the case to the High Court for passing necessary orders regarding the custody of the petitioner.

10. The learned counsel argued that the Visa of the petitioner had expired and unless the same is validated, th