MOIRANGTHEM MEGHA Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned PP for the State.

(2.) THE present application has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre -arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR Case No. 147(11) 2014 Kakching P.S. u/Ss 384/325/307/34 IPC and 25(1 -C) Arms Act pending investigation and trial of the said FIR case. The petitioner has approached this Court after his prayer for grant of similar relief had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal vide his order dated 3.12.2014. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 29.10.2014 alleging kidnapping and raping of his daughter by the informant of FIR case No. 147(11) Kakching P.S., namely, Sh. Japan Singh and 4 others. As the police did not entertain the said complaint, the wife of the petitioner filed a criminal complaint petition before the learned CJM, Thoubal against the said informant, Sh. Japan Singh and 4 others which was forwarded to the Thoubal Police Station for investigation. Since no action was taken, the wife of the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court on 17.12.2014 by filing a writ petition for directing the Chief Secretary, Manipur, Director General of Police, Manipur and the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal District, Manipur and the Officer -in -Charge, Thoubal Police Station to register an FIR case against the said informant, Sh. Japan Singh and 4 others. According to the petitioner, in the meantime, the said Sh. Japan Singh lodged a false report to the Officer -in -Charge, Kakching Police Station against the petitioner and others which led to the registration of FIR case No. 147(11) Kakching P.S.. Soon thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal by filing an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. and was granted the interim relief. Later, the said application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal vide order dated 3.12.2014 passed in Cril. M(AB) No. 91/14/87/2014 observing that the objection report clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the earlier interim anticipatory bail granted was cancelled. After rejection of the application by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal, on 3.12.2014, the petitioner has preferred this application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before this Court on 19.12.2014 and this Court by an interim order passed on 19.12.2014 granted interim relief directing that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the said case, he shall be released on bail. The matter is taken up for final hearing today. The learned PP has produced the relevant records/case diary. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal was summarily rejected without proper application of mind, without considering the merit of the case and discussing the materials on record but merely by observing that the objection report clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused without any discussion on the objection report as clearly evident in the order dated 3.12.2014. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the aforesaid rejection order is prima -facie unsustainable as it does not reflect due application of mind while rejecting the bail application.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned PP has vehemently opposed this application. Firstly, it has been contended that this application has been moved by the petitioner before this Court on 19.12.2014 after about two weeks of the rejection of his relief by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal on 3.12.2014 without any change in the circumstances of the case which has been already deprecated by the Courts. It has been held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Kushalduwari v. State of Assam; : 2009 (2) GLT 926 that successive application for pre arrest bail within a short period without any change in fact situation is impermissible. Learned PP has also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad; : (2001) 7 SCC 673 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that while successive bail application are permissible under changed circumstances, without change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under the criminal law. The learned PP also has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra; : (1996) 1 SCC 667 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that order of anticipatory bail should be of a limited duration and ordinarily on the expiry of the duration, granting anticipatory bail should be left to the regular Court to deal with the matter. In the present case, the petitioner has been enjoying the interim relief since December, 2014 and this has hampered the investigation and the bail application ought to be referred to the regular Court for the purpose of grant of bail. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the State relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran & ors.; : (2007) 4 SCC 434 that as the petitioner had already surrendered and had been granted bail in terms of this Court's direction, the petitioner should surrender before the Court concerned and move bail in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which could be dealt on merit. Learned PP also has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma; : (2014) 2 SCC 171 holding that power u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in character and has to be exercised only in exceptional cases where a person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It has been submitted by Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned PP that in the present case, the petitioner has not been cooperating with the investigation and there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he had extorted one Nokia handset, a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - and one wrist watch of the complainant which are yet to be recovered and the petitioner is not cooperating with I.O. of the case for effecting recovery of these articles and accordingly, it has been submitted that the investigating agency should be given a free hand to investigate the matter and no fetters should be placed on the I.O. by granting the relief to the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C.