ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Ashok Potsangbam on behalf of the accused A. Puni Mao of F.I.R. Case No. 617(9) of 1984, Imphal Police Station under Section 392 I.P.C. and 25(1)(a) Arms Act, now detained in Imphal Central Jail. Also heard learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Irabot Singh.
2. The petitioned has filed this application for issuance of a direction to the Inspector General of Police to disclose particular of all pending criminal cases against the accused, if any, so that he may not be arrested in connection with such pending cases after being released on bail in F.I.R. Case No. 617(9) of 1984, Imphal Police Station.
3. The accused was previously arrested in connection with F.I.R. Case No. 3(2) of 1986 of Sanapati Police Station under Sections 121, 121A, 302, 307, 395, 397 of the I.P.C., and in which he was released on bail on 26th Mar. 1987. While the bail petition of that case was under consideration, Police did not disclose about the fact of any pending criminal cases against the accused nor was there any prayer from Police to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for allowing them (Police) or their agencies to arrest the accused in such pending cases. But as soon as the accused came out on bail, he was arrested in connection with the instant case which was pending before his release on bail in case No. 3(2) of 1986.
4. Now, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused obtained bail order on 26th April, 1987 in connection with, the instant case No. 617(9) of 1984. It is also submitted that 264-1987 was the day on which the accused was produced before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide forwarding report ‘Annexure A/2′ and on that day the bail order was passed Copy of the bail order had not been furnished with this application.’ However, the facts in that regard have been stated in para 8 of the application. It is submitted that bail bond could not be furnished to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate apprcheading that the accused may again be arrested in connection with pending cases not yet been disclosed by Police, and for which this application was made for the relief referred to above.
5. Learned Counsel referred the case of the Udai Chand v. Sheikh Mahammed Abdullah, Chief Minister, Jammu & Kashmir in support of his contention. It was held by the Supreme Court that a re-arrest of an accused, soon after his being released on bail by a Court, in connection with a pending criminal case, without apprising or disclosing such court granting bail about the pendency of the criminal case, the re-arrest becomes illegal This decision of the Supreme Court is still valid as good Law for such nature of arrest or re-arrest.
6. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner had a reasonable apprehension for arrest in some pending cases as he was suspected by by Police to be a sympathiser of National Socialist Council of Nagaland. Such apprehension is found to be reasonable because he was arrested in the instant case which was pending when bail was granted to him in Case No. 3(2) of 1986. We find substance for issuance of a direction as prayed for relying the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
7. It is directed that the Officer-in-charge of Imphal Police Station shall disclose before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, within 4 (four) weeks, about the particulars of all pending criminal cases in which the accused A. Puni Mao is wanted, so that the accused may take necessary steps in such pending cases, before availing his liberty on the basis of bail order dated 26-4-1987 for safeguarding from his repeated arrest one after another in such pending cases. Failure to disclose the particulars of such pending cases, within the specified period of 4 (four) weeks (counting from the date of receipt of this order), to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Police instead of directly arresting the accused in such pending cases, shall inform the Chief Judicial Magistrate as to their intention of arresting the accused in such case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall cause attendance of the accused before him and shall hear the accused and then will pass the necessary directions to the Police with regard to the arrest or otherwise to the accused. We feel the necessity to pass such a direction to Police in order to safeguard the liberty of the Citizens from the harassment of repeated arrest.
8. It is the duty of police to disclose, the [particulars of pending case or cases of an accused, in which he is not yet been arrested, to the Magistrate before whom Police forwards the accused on arrest in a particular case, so that the accused comes to know that he is likely to be arrested at any time in those pending cases. Such particulars should be described in the forwarding report by which the accused is produced before the Magistrate or to disclose such particulars at any time to the Magistrate before the accused is enlarged’ on bail.
9. The accused. shall submit his Bail Bond before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for his liberty on the bail order dt, 26-4-1987 after expiry of 4 (four) weeks.
10. A copy of this order also be furnished to the Superintendent of Police, Imphal for information.
11. This Criminal Original case is disposed of with the above direction.
