SHONTHONG KUKI Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein were arrested on 18.5.1963 in connection with a F.I.R. Case No. 72 (I)/1961 of the Imphal Police Station under Section 395/337 I.P.C. in the F.I.R., the names of the petitioners were not mentioned. For more than two years after the F.I.R. was registered the Police did not take arty action against any of the petitioners. It was stated that on 16.5.1963, the petitioners 2 to 6 made an extra -judicial confession before some villagers in which they implicated the first petitioner also. Then the petitioners were arrested on 18.5.1963. Petitioners 2 -6 deny that they made any such confession. It was further stated that a few days after the arrest, some clothes said to be part of the booty in the dacoity were seized from the houses of petitioners 2 and 3. They state that the clothes belonged is them. It appears that there was a T.I. Parade, but none of the petitioners were identified. It is in this situation that bail was moved before me additional District Magistrate. But he rejected the bail. Then, they moved the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge was satisfied that this was a fit case in which bail should be granted and he accordingly directed them to be released on bail on their personal bond for Rs. 1500/ - each supported by two sureties each for a like amount. This order was made on 27.6.1963. But he added in his order that "they shall be released after two weeks from that date unless wanted in connection with any other case". This Revision Petition is filed against the said sentence which would have the effect of continuing their Jail custody for a period of two weeks from 27.6.1963.

(2.) IT was argued for the petitioners that when the Sessions Judge was satisfied that it was a tit case where bail should be granted and actually directed their release on bail, he had no power to direct further that they shall be in custody for a period of two weeks from the date of his order. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State was also not able to justify that portion of the order of the Sessions Judge.

(3.) ONE is not able to understand why the Sessions Judge put off the release on bail for a period of two weeks when he was satisfied that it was a fit case where bail should be granted to the petitioners. He has not given any reason why he considered it necessary to put off the release by two weeks. He has stated in his order that investigation against the petitioners was almost complete; that recovery of some gun was expected and that one absconding accused had yet to be arrested. Perhaps, the Sessions Judge thought that the Police should be given time to complete the investigation and to recover the gun and to arrest the absconding accused and that during that time the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail. If that was the intention of the Sessions Judge, the proper thing for him to do was to refuse bail on the application and to direct the petitioners to come up again after period of two weeks. The order of the Sessions Judge will virtually amount to present rejection of their bail application, and to granting of bail at the end of two weeks without a fresh petition. This was the argument of the learned Government Advocate. But if that was the intention of the Sessions Judge, he should have expresses it in proper language and he should not have stated that this was a fit case in which bail should be granted at the time when the investigation was not complete and the recovery of the gun was expected and the absconding accused had not been arrested.