IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need to consider exceptional circumstances and the gravity of the offence when deciding on anticipatory bail applications in cases involving criminal trespass and destruction of property.

JUDGMENT

1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in event of arrest in connection with the FIR No.15(3)2021 under Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC on the file of Sekmai Police Station.

2. Heard Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.3.2021 at 3.00 P.M., Rarry Mangsatabam of Thangmeiband reported to the Officer-in-charge of Sekmai Police Station that in the intervening night from 7.00 P.M. of 18.3.2021 and morning of 19.03.2021, the petitioners entered at the complainant's homestead land located at Potshangbam Khunou, Manipur of Tingri-Mapao Thangal Lambi and threatened the men, agents, workers of the complainant and directed to leave the house located at the said homestead land and in the event of not leaving the house warned that they would face dire consequences of assault, hurt and even losing their lives. On 19.3.2021 at about 10.00 A.M., when the workers of the complainant reached the said homestead land, Andy Mangsatabam and Annie Mangsatabam found that the pucca concrete pillar with iron mess wiring were vandalized and destroyed the fencing and the gate has also been found dismantled. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer-in-charge registered a case in FIR No.15(3)2021 under Sections 457/506/427/120-B/34 IPC and took up the case for investigation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are businessmen by profession and also holding the post of Chairman and Secretary of Mapao Thangal Village Authority respectively, which is a hill village of Manipur State having its own tradition and custom in regards to holding of land and other rights of the villagers governed by Manipur (Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956. He would submit that sometime in the year 1960, after the enactment of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 those lands located in the foothill of Mapao Thangal Village was parted and included within the land surveyed and was included in the revenue map made under the said Act. The foothill of the village of the petitioners is parted and drawn as C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 of Village No.25, Tingri and the land is being used by the villagers as grazing ground.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that in the month of February, 2021, persons identified themselves as children of late Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh along with 4-5 persons came to the land under C.S. Dag Nos.1373, 1374 and 1375 and attempted to make fencing around the same by claiming that the said land belong to his father late Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh. The villagers confronted to the acts of the said persons and requested not to enter into the said land for doing anything. Despite the request, they erected fencing around the land by claiming that the land belonged to their deceased father. When the petitioners and the villagers questioned them on what capacity they tried to occupy the said land, they replied that their father's name was recorded in the relevant Dag chitta and, therefore, they have right to occupy the said land.

6. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioners and the villagers made inquiry in the office of the SDC, Sekmai about the entries in the land records and during such inquiry, the petitioners found that Dag chittas of the said land was recorded in the name of State as Sarkari land and the name of Mangsatabam Iboyaima Singh was wrongly entered in the Dag chitta without showing any allotment order.

7. The learned counsel submitted that earlier the petitioners filed Criminal Misc, Case Nos.121 and 122 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West for anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge though granted interim pre-arrest bail and vide order dated 20.11.2021 dismissed the petitions.

8. The learned counsel next submitted that the petitio