IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in protecting personal liberty and the need for concrete facts and specific allegations in applications for anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in event of arrest in connection with the FIR No.58(6)2021 under Sections 379/411/482/ 483/468/34 IPC on the file of Lilong Police Station.

2. Heard Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.6.2021 at about 10.00 a.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police Ng. Arunkumar Singh on reliable information that some stolen Honda Activa were concealing at the residence of Phusam Mustak of Lilong Chingkham Makha rushed to the said residence along with his team. On reaching the spot, found two unknown person in a suspicious manner and they were detained for verification. On verification, they identified them as Phusam Mustak and Phusam Altaf. On further searching, the team found one suspected Honda Activa bearing No. Nil parking at the shed. On enquiry, they disclosed that they had purchased one stolen Honda Activa bearing No.MNO1AF-8153 from one Md. Imtiyas Shah with tampered chasis number and engine number. Further case of the prosecution is that the chasis number and engine number were tampered by Md. Abdul Nasir (petitioner) and the fake RC book of the above vehicle and RC book were seized by preparing seizure memo from the possession of Phusam Mustak and thereafter, arrested the above two persons.

4. According to the prosecution, the team thereafter rushed to the residence of Md. Imtiyas Shas, but he was not found at his residence. On further follow up action, the team rushed at the residence of Md. Abdul Nasir, but he was not found at his residence absconding police arrest. On further searching of the residence, they found three suspected stolen two wheelers and later on they were seized by preparing a formal seizure.

5. Resisting the petition, the respondent police filed counter stating that the petitioner has been granted interim bail by the Sessions Court. Though the petitioner appeared on 17.8.2021, thereafter, he failed to appear. It is stated that during examination, the petitioner diverting the charge against him. Therefore, in order to ascertain the real involvement in the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly required.

6. Mr. Th. Babloo, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he is just implicated falsely by the named accused in the FIR, as an act of revenge for the earlier scuffle. He would submit that there is sufficient reasons or likelihood of the petitioner being arrested by the police and in case the petitioner is arrested by the respondent police, his family will be suffered, as he is the bread winner of the family.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that earlier the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal by filing Crl. Misc. (AB) No.75 of 2021. By the order dated 2.8.2021, the learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail, however, by the order dated 4.9.2021, the application rejected.

8. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner will not leave the station without the permission of the Court and will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. The learned counsel urged that even assuming but not admitting that the petitioner has any nexus with the FIR, being a respectable and responsible citizen, he is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse the liberty on bail. Therefore, there is no justification to require him in custody for investigation of the case. Thus, a prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail.

9. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner and the other accused. It is the statutory duty of the investigating officer to investigate the case and, as such, naming of the petitioner is not the mandatory for investigating the case. H