Kapil Kumar Singh Khundrakpam v. The Officer-in-Charge of the Moirang Police Station

: Mr. H. Samarjit, Government Advocate; ... Respondents Date of Hearing : 13.05.2022. Date of Judgment & Order : 13.05.2022 AB.No. 23 of 2021 [2] JUDGMENT & ORDER [1] Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. [2] The petitioner who is an accused in FIR No. 37(5) 2021 MRG PS U/s 406/420/506/120B IPC & 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act, 1978 added Sections 21, 23, 25 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Scheme Act, 2019 has approached this Court and filed this anticipatory bail application seeking grant of Pre-arrest bail. [3] The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is presently pursuing M.A. 1st year in Manipur University and he has never indulged in any criminal offences till date. But all of a sudden the respondent police came to the petitioner’s house and searched him for arrest on the allegation that an FIR No.

37(5) 2021 MRG PS was registered against him and 7 (seven) others in connection with the allegation of illegal circulation and unregulated deposit money and cheating. But being a student of Manipur University, this petitioner is nothing to do with the offences as alleged by the respondent police. [4] The petitioner further stated that the main accused in this case one Mr. Pukhram Maikel Singh through his cousin sister who is the wife AB.No. 23 of 2021 [3] of the Pukhram Maikel Singh this petition, is falsely implicated in this case. [5] Being a student of Manipur University and pursuing his first year M.A course, this petitioner is never involved any criminal cases including the case in this case also. This petitioner having six members including his father, mother and 3(three) sisters and he is the only son of his parents. Apart this, the petitioner’s mother is a cancer patient and she is in the last stage of his life who need constant look after for her health by the petitioner only and if the respondent police arrested the petitioner, then the whole family including his mother will cause serious irreparable injury and serious consequences. [6] When the petitioner was in college the respondent police came to the petitioner’s house on 01.06.2021 at about 2.00 p.m for arrest the petitioner in this case.

To support this case, the petitioner has produced the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014 8 SCC 273 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court is held that the police officer does not arrest the accused person unnecessarily and the Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically in the cases for punishable up to 7 years imprisonment which is squarely applicable to the petitioner’s case also. AB.No. 23 of 2021 [4] [7] The petitioner has also produced whether the judgment passed by this Court in AB. No. 43 of 2022 dated 09.04.2021 in the case of Ningthoujam Dijen Singh Vs. The Officer in Charge of Women Police Station, Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur in which this Court held that this Court while passing the order as reproduce the guideline in respect of application for anticipatory bail in paragraph No. 25.10 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhudresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs.

State of Gujarat and another, reported in 2016 1 SCC 152. [8] By narrating above the facts and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the petitioner has submitted that he is ready to give fullest cooperation for investigation and ready to abide by any stringent condition to be imposed by this Court for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioner. [9] Denying the allegation set out by the petitioner, Mr. Samarjit, learned PP for the State respondent has submitted that there are totally 8 accused person were arrested and they were remanded in judicial custody on 27.05.2021 for the allegation that the case was registered based on the complainant given by one Soubam Sophina on 20.05.2021 on the allegation that the complainant and her husband were approached one of the accused by namely Pukhram Maikel and his wife to invest in a scheme called Grow Manipur Team (GMT) run by him along with the family members and associates.

They promised 7% monthly interest on AB.No. 23 of 2021 [5] the invested capital and also guaranteed that the invested capital can be withdrawn at any time after giving prior notice of 15 days on reaching an invested period of 3 months. The complainant and her husband were invested their money amounting to 29,00,000/-( Rs. Twenty nine lakhs) on four occasions against four receipts issued by the GMT office. The complainant further stated that the promised interest payments stopped from October 2020 onwards and their office at Moirang Pukhrambam Leikai, Bishnupur was also found shut down. When the complainant and husband approached the said accused person’s house the accused including this petitioner started to threaten and push and the invested amount of Rs. 29,00,000/-(Rs twenty nine lakhs) has also not been paid back . By enclosing the 4(four) nos. of copies of money receipts issued by Grow Manipur Team (GMT) towards the money invested by complainant and her husband and the passbook issued by the Grow Manipur Team (GMT), the complainant has approached the respondent police and given her complaint.

Based on the complainant, a case was registered in FIR 37(5) 2021 MRG PS for offences U/s 406/420/506/120B IPC & 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act, 1978 added Sections 21, 23, 25 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Scheme Act, 2019 and the respondent police arrested the 8(eight) accused. Being the relative of Pukhram Maikel Singh, this petition is also actively participated in the said offences. AB.No. 23 of 2021 [6] [10] He further argued that though the petitioner is a student of Manipur University, he cannot seek the anticipatory bail on the above ground since the interrogation of this petitioner is very necessary. Therefore, the learned PP strongly opposed for granting anticipatory bail. [11] Mr. H. Samarjit, learned PP also submitted that though the respondent police has filed their counter affidavit on 15.07.2021 by narrating all the above fact which are set out the commitment of the offence by this petitioner, he prayed this Court to dismiss the application. [12] Mr.

H. Samarjit, learned PP also pointed out in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit which is read as follows: “That during the interrogation of the accused person namely Maikel he stated that he had purchased one Mahindra Thar which was in the custody of one Kapil Kumar Singh Khudrakpam of Kwakeithel Makha Thokchom Leikai (present accused). Accordingly he was summoned to appear before the undersigned to record his statement. On his appearance his statement was recorded under 161 Cr.P.C in which he denied that the vehicle in his possession. He stated that he came to know GMT since it was run by his relatives Pukhram Maikel (Brother in law). He had invested more than 6 lakhs in GMT including his investment in stock market. He had also received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from P. Maikel as profit sharing for investing in the ponzi scheme. He was also involved in purchasing of the accused Maikel’s bike (KMT) and his Thar Jeep and sometime used the said vehicles for his personal use.

Investigation reveals that he is in close association with the accused person. Further custodial interrogation of Kapil is required to unearth movable other properties of Maikel which are still concealed by Maikel and Kapil. AB.No. 23 of 2021 [7] [13]. By narrating the above facts, Mr. H.Samarjit, learned PP has strongly opposed for granting bail. [14]. I heard both the parties and perused the records. [15]. Admittedly, the case was registered under FIR No. 37(5) 2021 MRG PS for the offence U/s 406/420/506/120B IPC & 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act, 1978 added Sections 21, 23, 25 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Scheme Act, 2019 against 8(eight) accused including this petitioner. [16] When the petitioner approached this Court and filed the above anticipatory bail application, the respondent police has filed the counter affidavit in which paragraph 8(eight) which is stated above which clearly reveals that except the averment made in paragraph 8(eight) of the counter affidavit, there is no direct allegation against this petitioner’s active involvement in this case.