Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Mark Thangmang Haokip @ Mark T Haokip - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Anr. - Respondents
Bail Appln. No. 11 of 2022
Decided On : 02-11-2022
Waging War - Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Sections 120-B/121/121-A/123/400 IPC and Sections 17/18 of UA(P) Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the petitioner's alleged involvement in conspiracy for secession from India and waging war against the Government of India and Manipur. The court referred to various incriminating articles, website materials, and social media posts as evidence of the petitioner's intention to establish a separate Kuki nation, leading to communal hatred and violence. The court highlighted the interpretation of 'waging war' under Sections 121 and 121-A IPC, emphasizing that it extends beyond conventional warfare and includes activities aimed at destabilizing the state. The court also considered the petitioner's previous bail applications and the multiple FIRs against him, concluding that the serious allegations against the petitioner had been prima facie established by the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with an FIR alleging conspiracy for secession from India and waging war against the Government of India and Manipur. The petitioner claimed wrongful implication and illegal detention, citing his previous release on bail and the innocuous nature of his social media posts. The prosecution argued that the petitioner's activities, including website materials and social media posts, indicated a conspiracy to establish a separate Kuki nation and incite communal hatred and violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in conspiracy for secession and waging war, based on incriminating articles, website materials, and social media posts. The court also noted the petitioner's previous bail applications and the multiple FIRs against him, concluding that the serious allegations had been established by the prosecution.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged involvement in conspiracy for secession and waging war, the admissibility of incriminating articles and social media posts as evidence, and the consideration of previous bail applications and multiple FIRs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the interpretation of 'waging war' under Sections 121 and 121-A IPC, extending beyond conventional warfare to include activities aimed at destabilizing the state. The court also considered the totality of the material gathered by the investigating agency, including incriminating articles and bank statements, and concluded that the serious allegations against the petitioner had been prima facie established by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed by the court, citing the prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in conspiracy for secession and waging war, as well as the multiple FIRs against him.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with FIR Case No.129(05)2022 under Sections 120-B/121/121-A/123/400 IPC and Sections 17/18 of UA(P) Act on the file of Imphal Police Station.
2. Brief facts are that on 30.5.2022, the complainant Sanjeeva Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Imphal Police Station, submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Imphal Police Station stating that as per reliable information, the petitioner, the President of an outfit organisation called 'Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Kukiland' was involved in a conspiracy for secession from India and to wage war or attempting to wage war or abetting wage war against the Government of India along with three other officer bearers, namely (i) KS Kipgen-Secretary (Admn); (ii) Lunkhohao Haokip-Sectary (Political Affairs) and (iii) CSK Mate (Press Secretary). The petitioner was also involved in spreading propaganda in social media platform so as to create instability, communal hatred, animosity, inciting violence, false propaganda etc., so as to achieve the organisational goal of Government of Kukiland. The petitioner also owns a website domain to propagate their ideas and hatch conspiracy against the Government. Based on the complaint, the Imphal Police Station registered an FIR No129(5)2022 under Sections 120- B/121/121-A/123/400 IPC and Sections 17/18 of UA(P) Act against the petitioner and took up the case for investigation by the investigating officer.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly implicated in this case and illegally detained in the custody by the arresting authority. All the allegations are based on bogus and cooked up story of investigating authority, including the allegations that he is the President of an outfit organisation called 'Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Kukiland', which hatched conspiracy to wage war and conspired to secede from India. Sans the ingredients nor the facts of attracting invocation of Sections in the FIR are prima facie established further detention of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has to be released on bail.
4. Objecting the bail petition, the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West District, filed affidavit stating that the petitioner had admitted to have involved in conspiracy for secession from the Union of India and the Government of Manipur and to form a Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Kukiland by means of waging war, attempting to wage war and abetting to waging war against the lawfully established Government. Because of his continuous incriminating rants through social media posts on sensitive issues, many law and order issues had been created. The petitioner is using social media platform as propaganda to achieve the goal to create instability, communal hatred, animosity, inciting violence, false propaganda to breed hatred and violence to achieve the organisational goal. The petitioner's group is nothing but a gang waging war against the country and organisation with the sole objective of secession from the Indian State to establish their so called Kukiland. The petitioner found to have involved in many criminal cases and lot of evidences are available to establish that he had committed the offence alleged in the instant FIR. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner was arrested at Delhi on 24.5.2022 by the personnel of Imphal Police Station in connection with 3 FIRs registered under Sections 153A, 505(2) IPC and brought to Imphal by transit remand and that on 27.5.2022, the leaned Duty Magistrate released him on bail as no case was made out against. Since the petitioner was not able to furnish requisite bonds, he was sent to judicial custody. On 30.5.2022, the petitioner was released from jail on furnishing necessary bonds. While so, on the same day,
The court denied bail based on the gravity of allegations involving incitement to violence, potential witness tampering, and the need to ensure trial integrity.
The judgment establishes that serious allegations of conspiracy to wage war against the state, supported by substantial evidence, warrant the denial of bail, particularly when there is a risk of evid....
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time, and that veracity of allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial.
The court reaffirms that the prima facie evaluation for bail under UAPA requires the prosecution to substantiate accusations beyond mere allegations, linking the accused to acts of terrorism and cons....
Bail cannot be granted to terror activists.
The court upheld that mere suspicion is insufficient for bail; substantial evidence indicating involvement in terrorist activities justifies denial of bail under UAPA.
Under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, bail is to be denied where prima facie evidence substantiates serious accusations of terrorism, while less compelling evidence may warrant bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
