AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Konsam Manitomba Singh, for whose release the present petition has been filed by his brother Konsam Saratchaadra Singh, was arrested by the police in connection with FIR Case No. 242 (4) 81 IPS under Sections 121, 121A, 307 I.P.C., 25(a) Arms Act and 13 U.A.P. Act. He was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, for remand to Judicial custody from time to time; and since then he has been in judicial custody until be was granted bail by the learned Magistrate on 15.6.1983. He was in fact, released from custody on 18.6.83 on acceptance of the bail bond. Immediately after release from the Central Jail, Imphal, he was rearrested by the police in connection with another FIR Case No. 9(1)81 IPS under Sections 121, 121A, 307 I.P.C., 25(1) (a) Arms Act and 13 U.A.P. Act, He was produced before the Magistrate in connection with the letter FIR; and since then he has been in confinement in jail till today.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that at the time when the accused Konsam Manitomba Singh was ordered to be released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, it was known to the prosecuting agency that he was one of the suspects wanted by the police in connection with the FIR Case No. 9(1) 81 IPS. For the reasons best known to the, authority, his involvement was not brought to the notice of the Court, and instead, after he has been released on bail, he was arrested in another FIR Case in the jail compound on 11.6.83 and thereby nullify the benefit of the order of release.
We have perused the case diary of the FIR Case No. 9(1)81 IPS produced by the counsel for the State. The entry in the case diary reveals that one Thanjam Udoi Singh, in his statements u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure made in April, 1981, indicated the accused Konsam Manitomba Singh as one of the culprits who made an attempt on the life of Potsangham Radheshyam Singh on 4.1.1981.
It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the prosecuting agency to apprise the Chief Judicial Magistrate before taking the accused in custody, specially when no disclosure was made to the Court while passing the order of bail that FIR 9(1)81 IPS, in which the accused Konsam Manitomba Singh has been involved, is under investigation.
In Udai Chand v. Sheikh Mahammed Abdullah, Chief Minister, Jammu and Kashmir reported in, (1983) 2 SCC 417 a question arose as to whether it was open to the authorities of the State to adopt such a course for re-arrest of the accused in another police case, after the release of the accused on bill by order of the Court. The Supreme Court observed at paragraph 5 as:
Mr. Kacker stated before us that the Petitioners were enlarged on bail in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on March 2, 1981 but they were subsequently arrested for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior to March 2, 1981. We are quite amazed at this statement and we should have expected that if after the order of bail passed by us the authorities of the State considered it fit to arrest any of the Petitioners for any other offences, it was their bounden duty to apprise this Court before taking those persons in custody, especially when no disclosure was made to us when we passed the order of bail that any case or cases were under investigation against any of the Petitioners. We regret that this elementary courtesy of this Court was not shown. We would like to reiterate that the Petitioners shall be treated as free citizen inspite of the fact, that they have been subsequently arrested which arrests are clearly contrary to the order of bail passed by this Court.
In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the subject, we are of the opinion that the prosecuting agency of the State cannot adopt such a course for rearrest of the accused in such circumstances and thereby nullify the order of release granted by the Court. Accordingly, we order that Shri Konsam Manitotnba Singh shall be treated as free citizen inspite of the fact that be has been subsequently arrested by the police in connection with FIR Case No. 9(1)81 IPS, the arrest being contrary to the order of bail granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, in connection with FIR Case No. 242(4) 81 IPS.
We however, direct the accused Konsam Manitomba Singh, to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal within a week from to-day in connection with FIR Case No. 9(1)81 IPS for further orders. The petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute. Send copies of this order to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Imphal and to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central), for due compliance.