Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.

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) BNSS added Sec: 109/351(3) BNSS, 2023 for the ends of justice;

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

[3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of HDB Finance Service now attached at HDFC Bank, Kakching Branch as Sales Executive having no criminal record and no connection with any illegal activities till date. It is submitted that on 10^th December, 2024, the IO of the case in FIR No. 81(11)2024 KCG-PS served a Summon under section 179 of BNSS, 2023 with direction to appear on or before 12^th December, 2024 at 11:00 am. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Thoubal in Cril. Misc. (AB) Case No. 65 of 2024, after hearing the parties, the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal granted interim bail to the petitioner vide order dated 13.12.2024. Relevant portion of the order dated 13.12.2024 reads as follows:

“In the meantime, interim pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner till 16.12.2024. Thus, it is directed that in the event of arrest in connection with the matter, the petitioner be released on interim ball on his furnishing PR bonds of Rs1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only with a surety of like amount on the condition that:

(i) the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

(ii) the petitioner shall make himself available before the investigation authority on or before 15.12.2024.

(iii) the petitioner shall not influence prosecution witnesses; and

(iv) the petitioner shall not leave the State of Manipur without prior permission of the Court.”

[4] It is submitted that on 16.11.2024, Kakching Police Station registered an FIR being FIR No. 81(11)2024 KCG PS U/s 132/133/3(5) BNSS added Sec: 109/351(3) BNSS, 2023 against a large group of people numbering more than 1000 numbers thereby causing damage to the property of the MLA of Kakching AC. Relevant portion of FIR reads as follows;

“12. First Information contents:

Today, i.e. 16/11/2024 at 8:50 PM received reliable information that Hon’ble MLA Mayangjambam Rameshwor Singh who had arrived at Kakching bazar area, at about 7:30 PM, to conduct public meeting with a large group of people, numbering more than 1000 numbers, had confined, manhandled and assaulted him during the public gathering. On receipt of the information a large security force led by SP Kakching along with CO-8 MR, Addl. SSP (LO) & Ops, SDPO, Kakching, OC-CDO, KCG PS teams, and others rushed to Kakching bazar at Naohanlai Lampak and tried to rescue him from the huge crowd. After prolong and hectic efforts, the police teams with the assistance of some workers of the Hon’ble MLA and some public rescued the Hon’ble MLA and brought him to a safer place.

Hence, a suo-motto case under FIR No. 81(11)2024 KCG-PS U/S 132/133/3(5) BNS is registered for investigation.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the name of the petitioner does not appear anywhere in the above referred FIR.

[5] It is submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is that on 16.11.2024, some 1000 number of people stormed the residence of the local MLA of Kakching AC thereby causing damage to the property and that the petitioner was involved in the said incident. However, the petitioner was never involved in the said incident. It is also submitted that on 16.11.2024, while returning from his office, he sa