1

BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

IMPHAL EAST.

CRIL. MISC. (B) CASE NO. OF 2024

Ref: FIR No. 52(06)2024 HNG-PS U/s 365/34 IPC

added 25(1A) Arm Act & 17 UA(P) Act.

Shamurailatpam Dhanaraj Sharma, aged about

16 years, S/o. Shamurailatpam Surjit a resident
of Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai P.O. & P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur -
795001.
. . . PETITIONER

- Versus -

State of Manipur.

……COMPLAINANT.

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application filed by the guardian/father

namely Shamurailatpam Surjit Sharma, aged
about 46 years, S/o Sh. Godhadhor Sharma
a resident of Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur
for releasing the aforesaid accused on bail
U/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Care and
Protection of Children Act, 2015.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That, the Applicant is the Father of the accused person namely

Shamulailatpam Dhanaraj Sharma, a minor child only 16 years of
age, who is a bona fide law-abiding citizen of India residing at the
1
 2

abovementioned place of residence and as such he is entitled to

all the rights, privileges and protections as guaranteed under the
Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder who is
arrayed as the Accused No. 2 in the present FIR case.

2. That, the alleged facts leading to the culmination of registering an

FIR by the prosecution, in brief, is that the son of the present
Petitioner namely Shamulailatpam Dhanaraj Sharma and other two
were arrested on 08/06/2024 in connection with the above-
mentioned FIR No. 52 (06) 2024 HNG-PS U/s 365/34 IPC added 25
(1A) Arm Act & 17 UA (P) Act.

3. That, at the outset, the Petitioner categorically and vehemently

denies all the charges leveled against his son and further states
that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

4. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE:

a. That, on 08-06-2024 one complainant namely Asem

Chandrakanta Singh (61) lodged a written report with OC/HNG-
PS/IE. On the said report, his mother namely Asem (o) Manitombi
Devi, 80 years informed him that on 07-06-2024, at around 11:00
P.M., his younger brother namely Asem Ojitkumar Singh of
Koirengei Nepali Basti was kidnapped by some unknown persons
from his shop cum residence located at Koirengei along with his
i20 car white in color bearing regd. No. MN06LA-5722 and his
bearing no. 9863240863.

b. That, after the search the other accused namely Naorem

Lanchenba Singh along with the alleged victim was found. Taking
advantage of the situation, the present accused namely
Shamulailatpam Dhanaraj Sharma ran away from the backyard of
the house. However, after hot pursuit the present accused was

2
 3

also detained along with one .32 pistol along with 8(eight) live
rounds and 1(one) 9mm round was recovered from his possession
along with two mobile phones and two sim cards.

c. That the Accused No. 1 and 2 namely Naorem Lanchenba Singh

and Shamurailatpam Dhanaraj Sharma were arrested on 5:00 pm
and 5:10 pm respectively from Shantipur, Leikinthabi, Imphal
West and Accused no. 3, Asem Berlin Meitei was arrested on
11:00 pm from Koirengei Nepali Basti.

d. That, further the arresting authority seize one alleged demand

letter of UNLF 15/11/2023 and one mobile phone from the
possession of the other accused namely Naorem Lanchenba
Singh.

e. That, the father of the Accused No. 3, who is also the purported
victim, reportedly assaulted his wife and dropped her off at the
parental home. Consequently, the Accused No. 3 solicited the
intervention of the other co-accused, who are his close friends to
mediate about the event with the victim. As a result, all the
accused and the alleged victim went to Shantipur to have a
conversation in private, travelling in the victim’s i20 car, which
was also driven by the alleged victim himself.

f. That, the mother of the alleged victim, namely Asem Manitombi

Devi, 80 years old, got restless given the law and order situation
in the state, informed the present complainant without having the
proper knowledge of the actual situation. Therefore, such
misunderstanding led the alleged victim’s elder brother in filing a
report to the Heingang Police Station.

g. That, the Accused no. 2 was arrested without any prima- facie
evidence to connect him with those charges/offences leveled
3
 4

against him, but with a malafide intention on a false

accusation with a view to cause an embarrassment and on
the ground that he is a member of unlawful organization.
All the charges/allegations made by the arresting authority/
police are baseless and unfounded.

h. That, except mere arrest, there is/was no any material to connect

the petitioner/accused with the charges leveled against him or
there is no reasonable grounds for believing that the
petitioner/accused has committed the offences leveled against
him in the FIR.

i. That, the petitioner/accused is a peace-loving, law-abiding citizen

and having no criminal antecedents. He is a student currently
studying at XII Class. He is totally innocent of the charges leveled
against him.

5. THE LANDMARK AUTHORITIES PERTAINING TO THE RULE OF

BAIL AND BOND MAY BE DISCUSSED AS HEREUNDER:

i. That, the basic cardinal rule of our criminal justice system is bail,
not jail (“Bail is rule and Jail is exception”). This basic rule is
being celebrated in this welfare nation through repetitive judicial
pronouncements for many decades. For more than 4 (four)
decades ago, in a celebrated judgment, rendered in State of
Rajasthan vs. Balchand reported in (1977) 4 SCC 308 (para 2
and 3), Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer reminded that the basis rule
of our criminal justice system is bail, not jail.

This basic rule is consistently followed in Sanjay Chandra

vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 at para 27, P.
Chidambaram Case reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791 (para 23

4
 5

on page 804), Arnab Goswami Case, reported in (2021) 2 SCC

427 (para 70 on page 473) and many others.

Hence, a rule bail is to be granted normally and as an

exception jail is to be resorted. Unless and until, there are
exceptional necessities for keeping a man behind bars, he should
be released on bail. But there are no such exceptional
necessities in the present case.

In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of enforcement,

reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
granting bail, observed that economic offences are also of grave
nature (para 19) and reiterated that the basis jurisprudence
relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail
is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the
accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial (para 23).

Again, in Arnab Goswami’s Case, reported in (2021) 2

SCC 427, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 70 observed that
the High Courts and courts in district judiciary of India must
enforce the basic rule “bail, not jail” in practice.

ii. That, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged is not the
sole factor to be to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail. If the prosecution gives sole weightage to
the gravity of the alleged offence, it would amount to, in the
words of Hon’ble Supreme Court as held in Sanjay Chandra’s
case, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 (Para 24), “recalibrating
the scale of justice”. So, rejection of bail without considering
other circumstances like danger of absconding, possibility of

5
 6

tempering evidence and others, by itself illegal being ignorance

of the law/principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It is further submitted that the right to be released on

bail is an aspect of personal liberty that flows from Article 21 of
the Constitution and deprivation of such right must be only in
accordance with law. So far, there is no particular enactment in
this country governing grant or refusal of bail. So, the law is fair
and proper consideration of those settled factors/circumstances
as enunciated in Prasanta Kumar Shakar ‘s case, reported in
(2010) 14 SCC 496, para 9 on page No 499, wherein Hon’ble
Apex Court formulated 8 factors to be borne in mind while
considering bail application.

In another, P. Chidambaram’s case reported in (2020)

13 SCC 337, (para 26 on page 351-352), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court shows its displeasure in the rejection of bail by focusing
mainly on the nature of the allegation and the merit of the case,
without keeping in view the well-settled principles for grant or
refusal of bail.

6. That, assuming but not admitting the facts that the present
accused person was arrested along with other two person with
arms and ammunition but he denies the facts of either used of the
same or knowledge of possessing the same on the date of arrest.
It is also very unfortunate at this prevailing situation, an innocent
person is being branded as a member of unlawful organization
without having any iota of evidence.

6
 7

7. That, the present accused shall neither abscond from the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court nor leave India without prior
permission of this Hon’ble Court.

8. That, the present accused shall make himself available for any
further investigation or recording of statement by the police or
investigating authority whenever so required.

9. That, the present accused shall not, directly or indirectly, makes

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the alleged facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer and shall not temper
prosecution while releasing on bail.

10. That, the accused/petitioner shall comply with such directions as

may be given by this Hon’ble Court and shall abide by any
condition(s) or direction(s) as stipulated upon him by this Hon’ble
Court while granting the remand objection prayer of the
petitioner.

11. BACKGROUND OF THE ACCUSED:

i. That, the present accused is deeply rooted in the society and a

bright youth of the society.
ii. That, the accused is simple and a teenager, hence, he is not
influential person in the society.

iii. That, the accused is a student attending school, presently studying

in Class 12.

iv. That, the accused have no past criminal records or no any kind of
antecedent.

12. GROUNDS FOR BAIL:

7
 8

a) That, the accused is innocent of all the charges/allegations;

b) That, the accused is a minor/juvenile and detaining him in

judicial custody can affect the future of the minor.

c) That, the investigating agency is yet to substantiate the

allegations leveled against the accused person till date after his
detention;

d) That, the accused have no criminal antecedent/ past

criminal record against him;

e) That, the accused shall neither abscond nor fled from justice
or trial in as much as the accused is deeply rooted in the
society and bright youth, rather he shall abide by the order(s) or
direction(s) of this Hon’ble Court.

f) That, the arresting authority failed to comply the direction(s)

passed in the case of Gopinath Gosh v. State of West
Bengal 1984 (Supp) SCC 228 to make an inquiry about the
age of the accused on the date of the occurrence.

“We are of the opinion that whenever a case is

brought before the Magistrate and the accused
appears to be aged 21 years or below, before
proceeding with trial or undertaking an inquiry,
an inquiry must be made about the age of the
accused on the date of the occurrence.”

g) That the accused will neither temper nor hamper the

investigation or prosecution in as much he is common man
having common means of livelihood.

In G. Narasimhulu & Ors. -Vs- Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, the

8
 9

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is

the exception”.

Again, in Bhagirath sinh Judeja -Vs- State of

Gujarat AIR 1984 SC 372, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held,

“If there is no prima facie case there is no question of

considering other circumstances but even where a prima
facie case is established the approach of the court in the
matter of bail is not that the accused should be
detained by way of punishment but whether the
presence of the accused would be readily available
for the trial or that he is likely to abuse the
discretion granted in his favour by tempering with
the evidence.

In the present case, there is no prima facie case against

the accused/petitioners. Even, tentatively presuming that a
prima facie case exists, what is of paramount
importance is to consider two vital aspects viz., 1)
Whether there exist any chance of the accused
influencing the witness or tampering with evidence, and
2. Whether the accused is likely to abscond or flee away
the course of justice?

6. That the present accused have sufficient means and are ready to
furnish the adequate bond(s) to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court as
and when they are granted bail.

P R A Y E R

In the above stated facts, it is prayed that

your Honour be pleased to reject the remand
9
 10

prayer and release the accused on bail in the

interest of justice.

Dated/Imphal SIGNATURE OF THE

PETITIONER
15/06/2024

By

Advocate:

10