Item No. 6
KHOIROM
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
Date: 2024.03.22
DRA SINGH
16:47:12 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
CRIL. M.C. No. 12 of 2024
Thokchom Indraraj Singh
Applicant
…
- Versus -
Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station, Imphal West
District, Manipur & Anr.
s
…Respondent
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
22.03.2024
[1] Heard Mr. L. Sevananda, learned counsel appearing for the applicant,
Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP appearing for the State respondent and Ms. A.
Noutuneshwori, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
[2] The present application has been filed with the following prayer:
To grant ad-interim anticipatory bail until the calling of bail
“(i)
objection report with the case diary in connection with the
FIR No. 08(01) 2024 IPS U/s 307/506 IPC & 25 (1-B) A. Act.
(ii) To issue other order(s) or direction(s) as deemed fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances stated in the
interest of justice.”
[3] On 25.11.2023 at around 11:15 a.m., the informant of the FIR case
and his family members were making preparation to construct a wall across the
common passage way used by both the informant’s family members and the
applicant and his family members on knowing of
applicant’s family members. The
P a g e 1 | 4
the preparation to construct the said wall by the informant and his family members,
protested thereby requesting the informant and his family members to refrain from
building the said wall as the same would create an obstruction to passing through
the passage way.
The informant of the FIR case and his family members, despite such
protest, started construction of the wall forcibly, which resulted chaos and
commotion and hence, heated arguments ensued between the parties. The
informant previously lodged a report to the officer-in-charge, Imphal Police Station
on 25.11.2023 and on 07.12.2023 made a report to the Superintendent of Police,
Imphal West since the report made to the Officer-in-Charge, Imphal P.S. did not
take the report. However, when the reports were not acted upon by the Police
Officials, the informant filed a complaint to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on
05.01.2024 and as such, the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West
directed the Officer-in-Charge, Imphal PS for investigation and the present FIR was
registered against the applicant.
[4] The father of the applicant and his uncle filed a civil declaratory suit in
the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West I, which was registered as
–
O.S. No. 55 of 2023 and the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West I passed
–
an injunction order dated 11.12.2023. Operative portion of the order reads as
follows:
-parte injunction
“This Court is of the view that the principle of grant of ex
are in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this Court deems fit appropriate
that the prayer of the plaintiffs be allowed and the status quo be maintained
till the next date of hearing in respect of the suit land described in Schedule
–C of the application.”
[5] The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application before the Ld.
Sessions Court, Imphal West dated 16.01.2024. The same was transferred to the
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East for hearing and numbered as Cril.
Misc. A.B. Case No. 9 of 2024. However, the said bail application was rejected vide
order dated 02.03.2024 by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East.
Operative portion of the order is reproduced herein below:
P a g e 2 | 4
into is
“As per Sec 438 CrPC, one of the main questions to be looked
the bonafide of the complaint and whether the same was made with the
intention of humiliating or causing injury to the accused by causing his
arrest. As this stage, the circumstances show that the complaint was not
made so as to humiliate the accused. Further, investigation is seen to be
proper and this Court finds no reason to circumscribe the investigation in any
manner by protecting the petitioner from arrest. The prayer for anticipatory
bail is hereby rejected. Interim order dated 19.01.2024 stands vacated.
Cril. Misc (AB) is disposed of accordingly.”
[6] The learned PP for the State respondent submits that he needs to get
report from the investigating officer to controvert the submissions made by the
petitioner and on perusal of record including the operative portion as reproduced
above, it is found that the parties are litigating before the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Imphal West I in connection with the present suit land and it is also seen that the
–
investigating officer of the case while submitting the interim bail objection report
before the Ld. Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East and in that, it was mentioned
that requisition was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Imphal East and
Imphal West District, Manipur through SP, Imphal West to verify the issue of any
small arms to the alleged accused/petitioner namely, Thokchom Indraraj Singh and
his family members to ascertain the true facts of the incident and the report is still
awaiting.
[7] In the facts and circumstances discussed and narrated herein above, a
comprehensive report from the I.O. of the case is required. But, due to the ensuing
Holi Vacation which is to start from tomorrow i.e. 23rd to 31st March, 2024, there is
no possibility to fix in the nearer date and accordingly, awaiting for the objection
from the learned PP, in the meantime, it is ordered that if the petitioner is arrested
by the police in connection with FIR Case No. 08(01) 2024 IPS U/s 307/506 IPC &
25 (1-B) A. Act, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction
of the arresting authority. It is also made clear that the applicant should co-operate
with the investigation and he should make himself available before the I.O. of the
case as and when required. The applicant should not leave the State of Manipur
without prior permission of the arresting authority. This interim order will be
operative till the next date of hearing.
P a g e 3 | 4
[8] It is further made clear that if the applicant violates any of the
conditions given hereinabove, the respondents are at liberty to approach this Court
for modification or cancellation of this interim order.
[9] Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Bipin
P a g e 4 | 4