SALAUDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. BP Sahu, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Yaiskul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. RS Reisang, learned Sr. PP assisted by Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned PP for the State.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been subjected to victimization by the present Member Secretary, MOBC on charges which are not yet substantiated. In fact, the Member Secretary, MOBC had placed the petitioner under suspension without authority vide order dated 03.05.2018 because of which the petitioner had to approach this Court and this Court in W.P.(C) No. 384 of 2018 had stayed the said suspension order dated 03.05.2018. Thereafter, after 3 (three) days of the said suspension order, the Member Secretary, MOBC filed a complaint. The Member Secretary filed another FIR thereafter which is now the subject matter in another bail application thus, clearly indicating the attitude of the Member Secretary, MOBC.

(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. BP Sahu, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that apart from that, the petitioner has been co-operating with the investigation of the case and there is no question of the petitioner evading the law and in view of above, there may not be need of the custodial interrogation. In this regard, Mr. BP Sahu has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in HDFC Bank Limited Vs. J.J. Mannan @ J.M. John Paul and Anr., (2010) 1 SCC 679 in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of Section 438 CrPC has been repeatedly explained by the Supreme Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant as held at para 19 which is reproduced herein below: