Manipur High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Activist, Cites Non-Cooperation and Gravity of Offences

IMPHAL - The High Court of Manipur has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Naorem Priyobarta Singh, the Public Relations Officer of the Kakching-based group 'Langsai Thouna', in a case involving rioting, attempt to murder, and damage to public property. In a stern judgment, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu underscored that an accused who fails to cooperate with the investigation and violates court-imposed conditions is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an FIR registered on July 19, 2023, following a bike rally organized by Langsai Thouna from Kakching towards Moirang. The rally, held in violation of a curfew order by the District Magistrate, allegedly escalated into a violent confrontation with the police.

The police report alleges that the bikers, upon being stopped, formed an unlawful assembly, attacked police personnel with stones and bricks, injured officers, and damaged 12 police vehicles. The mob also allegedly burnt a police sentry booth at the Kakching Police Station gate, posing a threat to the lives of officers inside.

Consequently, an FIR was filed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 147 (rioting), 307 (attempt to murder), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant), and 427 (mischief causing damage), along with the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Naorem Priyobarta Singh, identified by the police as one of the orchestrators of the incident, sought anticipatory bail to avoid arrest.

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioner's Submissions: Md. Ajmal Hussain, counsel for the petitioner, argued that Singh's name was not in the original FIR and that the police were selectively targeting him and his family. He contended that the incident was a result of police provocation, including the firing of tear gas shells, and was later amicably settled. It was asserted that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was compounded by other pending FIRs against him, compelling him to evade the authorities.

Respondent's Submissions: Mr. M. Rarry, Senior Counsel for the State, vehemently opposed the bail plea. He highlighted that the Sessions Judge in Thoubal had initially granted Singh interim pre-arrest bail on December 13, 2024, on the condition that he appear before the investigating officer by December 15, 2024. However, the petitioner willfully disobeyed this direction. This non-compliance, the state argued, demonstrated a disregard for the judicial process and disentitled him to any relief. The prosecution stressed the serious nature of the offenses and stated that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy.

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the conduct of the petitioner and the gravity of the allegations. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner's failure to appear before the investigating authority as directed by the Sessions Court was a critical factor.

The Court observed:

"After going through the above mentioned development other than the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the conditions imposed on the petitioner/accused by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal while granting interim bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner violated the direction of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal."

Justice Gaiphulshillu relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including Srikant Upadhyay vs. State of Bihar & Another (2024) , which held that a person defying court orders and absconding is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail. The Court noted that "law aides only the abiding and certainly not its resistant."

The Court also considered the parameters for granting anticipatory bail laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , focusing on the nature and gravity of the accusation. It concluded that the balance of factors weighed heavily in favour of the prosecution.

Final Decision

Finding that the petitioner had disobeyed a clear judicial order and was facing serious allegations across multiple FIRs, the High Court held that granting him protection from arrest would be inappropriate.

The Court stated in its concluding paragraphs:

"On overall analysis of the materials produced by both sides, this Court is of the view that considering the nature and gravity of the offence leveled against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner who is not cooperating with the investigation is in-appropriate."

The anticipatory bail application was accordingly rejected, clearing the way for the police to proceed with the investigation, which may include the arrest of Naorem Priyobarta Singh.