SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Manipur) 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU, J.
 
Naorem Priyobarta Singh, S/o Naorem Purniam Singh of Kakching Wairi Sabal Leikai - Appellant 
Versus 
Officer in Charge - Respondent  
AB No. 47 of 2024
Decided on : 07-01-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M. Hemchandra, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Rarry, Senior Advocate

Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases, and requires strict compliance with court-imposed conditions.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 482, 190, 191(2), 324(4), 331(4), 3(5), 3(2)(e), 61(2), 109, 310(2), 351(3) - Anticipatory bail - Application for anticipatory bail was rejected due to non-compliance with conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge - The petitioner was accused of serious offences related to public disorder and violence - The court emphasized the need for cooperation with the investigation and the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner. (Paras 1, 12, 14, 30)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Parameters for grant - The court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases - The petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such relief. (Paras 26, 28)

(C) Compliance with Court Orders - The court noted that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the interim bail order, which included appearing before the investigating officer - Non-compliance justified the rejection of the anticipatory bail application. (Paras 11, 13, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 81(11)2024, alleging involvement in a violent mob incident. The petitioner claimed harassment by police and non-involvement in the incident, but the court found evidence of serious allegations against him.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner violated the conditions of the interim bail and that the allegations against him were serious, justifying the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

Issues: The main issues were the compliance with court orders and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that requires strict compliance with conditions, and the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner warranted the rejection of his application.

Result: Anticipatory bail application rejected.

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 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers:

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 190/191(2)/324(4)/331(4)/3(5) BNS and 3(2) (e) PDPP Act added Sec: 61(2)/109/310(2)/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 PS U/s 190/191(2)/324(4)/331(4)/3(5) BNS and 3(2) (e) PDPP Act added Sec: 61(2)/109/310(2)/351(3) BNS, 2023 against a large group of people numbering about 500/600 members of Langsai Thouna (a CSO) based at Kakching and some students organization of Kakching. 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 ShriKh. Arunkumar, Advocate took photograph as





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top