In a very significant observation, the Manipur High Court has in a most commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment titled Smt Mayanglambam Prabha Devi vs State of Manipur in AB No. 29 of 2022 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 11 that was pronounced as recently as on November 2, 2022 has minced just no words to make it absolutely clear that ‘State’ is an unnecessary party to anticipatory bail applications. It must be mentioned here that Hon’ble Mr Justice MV Muralidharan issued some commendable directives in this regard after he noticed that the accused failed to enclose a copy of the complaint along with the anticipatory bail petition. We shall discuss later elaborately on it. The Court made it clear that in a petition for grant of anticipatory bail, the State and the Superintendent of Police concerned are not required to be arrayed as parties.
At the very outset, this most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice MV Muralidharan sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge her on bail in the event of arrest by the personnel of Kakching Police Station in connection with FIR No.101(11)2021 under Sections 413/420/471 IPC.”
While elaborating on the prosecution case, the Bench states in para 2 that, “The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by the younger brother of the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal under Section 190 read with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation by stating that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the patta of the agricultural land having patta No.994(N), C.S. Dag No.242 measuring an area of 1.40 acre at Village No.59, KakchingKhullen, Kakching Tehsil, Kakching District by using the forged signature of the complainant. Pursuant to the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, an FIR No.101(11)2021 was registered under Section 413/420/471 IPC by Kakching Police Station against the petitioner and the case was taken up for investigation.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 3 that, “The case of the petitioner is that the complainant has made allegations against the petitioner, according to his choice and pursuant to the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal, the respondent police registered the instant FIR. Apprehending arrest in the hands of the personnel of Kakching Police Station, the petitioner earlier approached the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal for anticipatory bail. Though the learned Sessions Judge granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner initially, subsequently, the petition was dismissed on 21.6.2022. After the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner apprehending arrest filed the present petition.”
On the contrary, the Bench then states in para 4 that, “Opposing the petition, the respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the complainant and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and had also sent requisition for furnishing related documents from the competent authority of the Assistant Survey Officer, Kakching Circle regarding mutation of case nos. which has entered the petitioner’s name in the place of the complainant so as to ascertain the real fact of the case and the competent authority has not furnished the documents till date. It is stated that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation and not revealing the truth and has not produced any supporting documents like registration and mutation of the land in question. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.”
To be sure, the Bench then states in para 24 that, “Thus, the allegation against the petitioner is that she committed forgery of a document which is to be used in transferring an immovable property, though her case is of a complete denial. Though the petitioner claimed that she is the lawful owner of the land measuring an extent of 1.40 acres covered by C.S. Dag No.242, the petitioner has not produced any relevant documents to support her claim either before the investigating officer or before this Court.”
Be it noted, the Bench then enunciates in para 26 that, “The complainant has filed his objection to the petition stating that the name of the petitioner has been entered in the land record of the said land by forging documents and signatures which is under investigation. In the bail objection report filed by the Officer-in-Charge of Kakching Police Station before the learned Sessions Judge, it has been stated that he has also sent a requisition for furnishing the related document from the competent authority, namely the Assistant Survey officer, Kakching Circle regarding Mutation Case nos., which has entered the petitioner’s name from the complainant, so as to ascertain real facts of the case. It is stated that so far, the competent authority has not furnished the related documents of the case. Since serious allegation of forgery has been levelled against the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. This Court finds no infirmity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge.”
Without mincing any words, the Bench then expounds in para 27 that, “On overall analysis of the materials produced by both sides, this Court is of the view that in order to ascertain whether the offences have been really committed by the petitioner or not and to find out the true facts, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is not co-operating with the investigation, is inappropriate.”
It merits mentioning that the Bench then notes in para 29 while citing the relevant case law that, “In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379, the Hon’ble Apex Court elucidated the principles for consideration of grant of anticipatory bail, which are as under: “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213, and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305).”
Quite significantly, the Bench then observes in para 30 that, “An anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. Here, it is a case where prima facie case of the involvement of the petitioner in the crime has been established by the prosecution and no contra proof has been produced by the petitioner. Evaluating the entire materials produced by the parties, this Court is of the view that this is not a case falling under the exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief prayed for by her and, accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.”
Quite forthrightly, the Bench then hastens to add in para 31 stating that, “Having considered the given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited above and also the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail in this case.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 32 that, “In the result, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. The following directions are issued to the Registry for strict compliance:
(a) The Registry should ensure that petition for anticipatory bail or regular bail should be appended with legible copies of complaint and the FIR registered against petitioner/accused. If the petitioner/ accused fails to enclose copies of the complaint and the FIR, the Registry should return the petition and only after due compliance, the petition should be numbered.
(b) In all anticipatory bail, the complainant should be made as party respondent for proper adjudication of the petition.
(c) The array of unnecessary respondents like the State, represented by Commissioner/Secretary (Home), Secretary to the Government Departments, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police are to be avoided in the Anticipatory bail application and the Registry should not entertain the said applications.
(d) The Registry should ensure array of the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station/Investigating Authority and the complainant as parties to the petition for anticipatory bail and bail.
(e) The Registry is directed to strictly comply the above directions without any excuse.”
All said and done, it merits no reiteration that all these directions that have been issued by the Manipur High Court must be implemented as directed hereinabove. It is really quite refreshing to note that the Manipur High Court has made it indubitably clear that State is an unnecessary party to anticipatory bail applications. Therefore, there is no need for State to be made a party in anticipatory bail applications. No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi`