Anticipatory bail can be denied if the applicant fails to comply with court orders and conditions, especially in serious cases involving multiple FIRs.

JUDGMENT :

GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU, J.

[1] Heard Mr. Hemchandra, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rarry, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent at length.

[2] The present case has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksh Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer:

(i) To admit the present application;

(ii) Call for the records;

(iii) After hearing the parties, grant pre-arrest bail or anticipatory bail to the petitioners/applicants u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in its absolute nature in connection with the above referred FIR No. 81(11)2024 KCG PS U/s 132/133/3(5) BNS added Sec: 109/351/(3) BNS, 2023 for the ends of justice;

(iv) To pass any other order/direction as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

[3] The case of petitioner is that on 16.11.2024 at around 6:30 pm All Kakching Clubs Coordinating Committee along with Bazar Board; Joint Non-Government Voluntary Organisation; Keithel Ema Lup, Kakching and Langshai Thouna organized a joint candle lighting at the main Road of Kakching Bazar to condemn the inhuman killing of 6(six) innocent civilians of Jiribam District by some unknown militants. After the candle lightening, some of the people who had gathered at the Main Road of Kakching Bazar attacked/storm the residence of the local MLA of Kakching AC thereby causing damage to the property. In connection with the said incident, the Kakching Police Station registered FIR No. 81(11)2024 KCG U/s 132/133/3(5) BNS added Sec: 109/351/(3) BNS, 2023 against a large group of people numbering more than 1000 numbers. However, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned anywhere in the said FIR as he was not at all involved in the said incident.

[4] It is submitted that the personnel of Kakching Police Station have been regularly visiting the residence of the petitioner with an intention to cause harassment to the petitioner and arrest him in connection with the said FIR case. It is also submitted that under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023, notice of appearance before a Police Officer is to be given to a person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made but the act of the personnel of Kakching Police Station clearly violate the relevant provisions of the Act i.e. BNSS, 2023.

[5] Being aggrieved, the applicant/petitioner filed Cril. Misc (AB) Case No. 63 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Thoubal whereby the Ld. Court of Sessions Judge, Thoubal passed interim order dated 02.12.2024 thereby granting interim relief to the applicant/petitioner. Relevant portion of the order dated 02.12.2024 reads as follows:

“On being heard and after having perused the applications, it is of my opinion that a chance be given to the petitioners of being heard.

Hence, the petitioners are directed to appear before the IO of the case on 03.12.2024 before 5:00pm and depose about their involvements.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioners by the personnel of Kakching PS, the petitioners be released on interim anticipatory ball till 06.12.2024 on their furnishing PR and surety bonds of Rs 50,000/- with the following conditions that the petitioners shall:

(i) co-operate with the investigating authority as and when required &

(ii) not leave the State of Manipur without prior permission of the Court.

Further, the OC/Kakching PS is directed to submit report before this Court on 06.12.2024 for hearing.”

Further, submits that as per order dated 02.12.2024, the petitioner along with his counsel and some local people went to the Kakching P.S on 03.12.2024 at around 3:30 pm. However, as no one was present at the Kakching P.S, the petitioner along with his counsel had to return, upon coming out of the premises of Kakching P.S. the petitioner and his counsel namely Shri Kh. Arunkumar, Advocate took photograph as proof that the they had visited the Kakching P.S. as per the direction of the Court of Sessions Judge, Thoubal however, the same was completely omitted in the report of the I.O. and the