Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Lourembam Shyamkesho Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Anr. - Respondents
AB No. 15 of 2020 & AB No. 25 of 2020
Decided On : 10-08-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Assault - Sections 188/269/307/325/326/427/34 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another. The court emphasized the need for concrete facts and reasonable apprehension for granting anticipatory bail, and the importance of protecting personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal assault case where they were accused of assaulting and attempting to kill the complainant and others using deadly weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case and that there was no concrete evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged crime. The court also emphasized the need for concrete facts and reasonable apprehension for granting anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the criminal assault case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for concrete facts and reasonable apprehension for granting anticipatory bail, and discussed the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners with specific conditions to cooperate with the investigation and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
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.18(3)2020 under Sections 188/269/307/325/326/427/34 IPC on the file of the Andro Police Station.
2. Heard Mr. L. Sevananda Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.03.2020 at 11.20 p.m., a group of 30/40 persons led by 14 persons, including the petitioners assaulted the complainant and four others by using deadly weapons, such as iron rods and sticks and also attempted to their lives by firing small arms. As a result of which, they got injured in their body. In the course of occurrence, the accused have also damaged the Maruti Baleno car at Leirak Achoua near the transformer located at Yambem Mathak Leikai by using sticks as well as iron rods.
4. Resisting the petitions, the respondents 1 and 2 filed objection stating that in the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioners are also involved in the commission of the crime. When the respondent police made an attempt to arrest them, the petitioners have evaded from the police arrest. Since the custodial interrogation of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid FIR is required, they cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were working as political workers of Lourembam Sanjoy Singh who has been implicated as coaccused with the other unknown persons in a different FIR Case No.30(05) 2020 under Sections 188/325/307/34 IPC and Section 25(1-C)A of Arms Act and he was arrested by the Andro Police in reference to the said case and subsequently, released on bail on 18.5.2020. Immediately on his release, again he was arrested and detained under the National Security Act on 20.05.2020. The petitioners are no way related to Lourembam Sanjoy Singh.
6. The learned counsel would submit that earlier, the petitioners and other accused have filed Cril. Misc. (Ant. Bail) Case No.23 of 2020 before the learned Sessions Jude, Imphal East. By the order dated 30.5.2020, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail in respect of some of the accused, and some directed to appear before the investigating officer on or before 7.6.2020 and have been directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest on execution of personal bonds of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each of the like amount.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners never involved in the assault and that they have been falsely implicated in this case in conspiracy with political vendetta. He submits that the prosecution story is concocted and in fact the respondent police are trying to arrest the petitioners on false information and report without any valid basis.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners may suffer irreparable loss and injury against their reputation and prestige in the society, if they were not granted anticipatory bail. The petitioners are ready to accept any condition to be imposed by this Court in the event of granting anticipatory bail and also to produce reliable persons to stand as sureties on their behalf.
9. The learned counsel next submitted that the FIR case has been registered against the petitioners and that they were granted pre-arrest bail on 16.06.2020. The petitioners are of the reasonable apprehension that the present FIR may have the very likelihood of implicating them on false charges and grounds. Thus, a prayer is made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners and the other accused. It is the statutory duty of the investigating officer to inves
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for concrete facts and reasonable apprehension for granting anticipatory bail, and the importance of protecting personal liberty under Art....
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 app....
The court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with the interests of society and highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating the facts of the case before granting anticipatory bai....
The nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail are crucial factors in determining the ....
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
