YENDREMBAM ONGBI MUNAL DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Irabot Singh, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

(2.) At the beginning I must say that this is a very sorry state of affairs that the accused Sri Y. Ibohanbi alias Jambhu Singh has been detained in jail for a long period of nearby 6 years and 8 months and yet his bail application has not been considered nor the reason for his arrest has been disclosed in the Trial Court. The accused was arrested by C.R.P.F. personnel on 25-5-81 in connection with F.I.R. case No. 46(6)81 of Lamlai P.S. under sections 121/121-A/307 I.P.C. read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (P) Act. Thereafter the accused was remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused faced the trial in the Court of Sessions in Sessions Trial No. 21(MC/C JM-C) of 1983/5. However, the accused was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and also a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for another 6 moths. Being aggrieved the accused preferred an appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1986 which is still pending for disposal. On the prayer of the accused, this Court directed the accused to be released on bail and suspended the order of sentence till disposal of the appeal. However, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court the accused was released on bail but again he was rearrested on the ground that there are two other pending cases against the accused one being F.I.R. Case No. 26(4)80 of Kakching P.S. and-the other being F.I.R. Case No.221S (4)81 of Imphal P.S. However, the accused made an application for bail in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 9/86 in the Court of learned AddI. Sessions Judge-IT, Manipur on the ground of ailment. This fact of ailment of the accused was confirmed by the Medical Officer who treated the accused. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge, however, considered all aspects of the matter and also of the ailment of the accused and on being satisfied, allowed the accused to be released on bail and put certain conditions. Though the accused was released on bail, he was again arrested in connection with F.I.R. Case No. 48(3) 80 of Thoubal P.S. under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 25(a) of the Arms Act. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate asked for a report from the 0/C Imphal P.S. which was, however, submitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused was subsequently remanded to judicial custody and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused has been still in judicial custody.

(3.) I have also heard Mr. K. Irabot Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that since the accused is involved in non-bailable offence in connection with other cases he was rearrested and was not allowed to go on bail by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without disclosing the nature of the offences before the concerned Magistrate the accused cannot be arrested and such action has been highly deprecated by several judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court of the country. In course of submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to me the following decisions of this Court: