IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence, the humane treatment of accused individuals, and the balance between personal liberty and the security of the community are central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

These applications have been filed by the petitioners accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with FIR No.59(4)2021 on the file of the Imphal Police Station registered under Sections 307, 506 and 34 IPC; Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act and under Section 13 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

2. Since both the bail applications arise out of the same FIR, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.4.2021 at 5.50 pm, the respondent police received an information that, at about 5.20 pm on 17.4.2021, one unknown person who came with another person on a white colour scooter kept a hand grenade along with one sheet of paper with threatening message written on it from the banned UNLF organization inside the premises of an under-construction house of one Leimapokpam Somakanta Singh of Yaiskul Ngakraba Leirak to cause loss of human lives and damage to valuable properties. However, the hand grenade failed to explode and the unknown culprit fled away towards the western side after the commission of the crime. The respondent police registered a suo-motu case against the unknown cadres of the outlawed organization UNLF. Thereafter, the respondent police took up the case for investigation and during investigation the investigating officer arrested the petitioners and detained them in jail.

4. The petitioners have filed bail applications stating that there is no modicum of evidence to substantiate the allegation made by the respondent police against the petitioners and the detention of the petitioners without any evidence is a violation of their right to liberty enshrined in the Constitution. The petitioners have also averred that the case of the prosecution in the above referred FIR is on mere apprehension that the petitioners were members of the outlawed UNLF and such circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain them for long and it would curtail the right to life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners have filed bail applications to enlarge them on bail.

5. The respondent police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on interrogation of the petitioner Yelam Ratan @ Khamba @ Taton Singh, he had stated that he was previously arrested four times in connection with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by various police stations. Similarly, the petitioner Maiban Sharat @ Chaoren during interrogation stated that he was previously arrested on three occasion by various police stations in connection with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is also stated by the respondent police that the petitioners were also convicted in some of the cases and thereafter released on bail and during the time of their previous arrest and the present arrest, they were holding the key post in UNLF. It is also stated that there are materials to connect the petitioners with the crime and if they were released on bail, the petitioners are likely to hamper the investigation by threatening witnesses and likely to abscond. Hence, prayed for dismissal of bail applications.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the alleged crime and in fact they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that on 21.4.2021, the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police from their respective residences.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the petitioners were members of UNLF organization, now they have returned in the mainstream and are living with their family and children. The alleged recovery of mobile phones and other articles stated by the respondent police are concocted one and no recovery has been made by the investigating officer at any point of time.

8. The learned counsel next submitted that the petitioners did