(Video Conference) v. State of Manipur
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, the present bail application is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 167(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL (Video Conference) Bail Appln. No. 1 of 2022 Ch. Deikholhing Mate @ Deineihoi Haokip … Petitioner Vs. State of Manipur … Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH 07-03-2022 Heard Mr. L. Birjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned P.P. appearing for the respondents. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 04-09-2021 by the police personnel of Lilong P.S. in connection with FIR No. 88(09)2021 LIL-PS u/s 21(C)/29/60(3) ND&PS Act and since then, the petitioner has been detained in police and judicial custody for more than 180 days. In view of the above, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner has been detained in custody for more than 180 days without filing any charge-sheet in connection with the said FIR, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as provided under section 167(2) of the CrPC. Mr.
Operative part
H. Samarjit, learned P.P. also fairly submitted that the authorities are yet to file any charge-sheet in connection with the aforesaid FIR and as such, the learned P.P. fairly submitted that any appropriate order be passed by this court as deem fit and proper. In view of the submission made above and as the petitioner has been in custody beyond the statutory period provided under section 167(2) of the CrPC without charge-sheet being filed by the authorities, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view of the above, the present bail application is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The petitioner should be released on bail in connection with the FIR No. 88(09)2021 LIL-PS u/s 21(C)/29/60(3) ND&PS Act on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) with one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting authority; IN. 40 (ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation by I.O. of the case as and when required;
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts of the Court or to any other authority;
(iv) The petitioner should not leave the State without prior permission of the arresting authority;
(v) Liberty is given to the Police to make any appropriate application for modification / recalling this order, if the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. A copy of this order be furnished to both the counsels appearing for the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail. Devananda JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the present bail application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 167(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.