Yumnam Munindro Mangang vs State Of Manipur & Ors

[1] This application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR No.4(8)2019V&ACPS under Section 120-B read

with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

[2] The case of the prosecution is that on 7.8.2019, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police Station, Manipur, lodged

a complaint stating that during the course of discreet verification of vigilance case No.21/V/SP-V&AC PS/2019, 22 numbers of work programs which

are to be executed in various areas of Imphal West District had been issued by Building Division No.II, Public Works Department, Manipur, however,

none of the works are found to have been executed properly and the petitioner, who is the Executive Engineer/Building Division No.II, PWD, Manipur

had released and paid a sum of Rs.421.72 Iakhs to the Contractors without the execution of works and also without necessary documents. It is alleged

that the petitioner, in connivance with the Contractors and other unknown public servants and also private persons indulged in activities causing large

scale misappropriation of public money.

[3] According to the petitioner, by virtue of his service and position, he had issued 22 different work orders viz., one work order on 10.3.2016; Eight

work orders on 14.2.2018; Six work orders on 16.2.2018; Five work orders on 16.4.2018 and Two work orders on 19.4.2018. As soon as the work

orders were issued, the respective Contractors started to execute the works. According to the petitioner, the Government issued instructions and

directions to complete the bills for payment to the Contractors and other financial liabilities for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The respective

Contractors have also submitted the completion report to the Office of the Executive Engineer through the officials and completion certificates were

issued after checking by the Assistant Engineer/Section Officer. Since the funds of the above said 22 work orders of the respective works were going

to be lapsed, the petitioner has caused to release the payments to the concerned Contractors. While that being the fact, an FIR has been registered

against the petitioner and five Contractors in connection with the above contract works and payments of their respective works were made within the

limits of the estimated cost. As such, the Government does not incur any financial loss. Hence, on the apprehension of arrest, the petitioner has filed

the present application.

[4] The respondents have filed objection stating that the present petition is liable to be rejected on the sole ground that the offence committed by the

petitioner is related to economic offence and those offence which are punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, besides the offence of

cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is stated that the petitioner has committed aggravated offence of cheating while filing the present

petition in order to obtain anticipatory bail by manufacturing further false and fabricated documents after lodging of FIR. It is also stated that earlier

the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory ball and the same was rejected observing that the present case involves a huge

sum of public money to the tune of Rs.421.72 Iakhs. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been apparently indulging himself in concealing

material documents and hampering the smooth progress of the investigation. There is no bonafide in the present petition and the custodial interrogation

of the petitioner is very much needed in the present case. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

[5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is serving as Executive Engineer, Building Division No.II, Public Works

Department, Government of Manipur and on 8.8.2019, when the petitioner was out of his home, a team of Vigilance & Anti Corruption Police came to

his house and told his family members that they are going to arrest the petitioner in connection with a case relating to the contract works at DC Imphal

West Complex, Inspection Bungalows, Government Quarters located at Langol areas and other Government Departments.

[6] The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has discharged his duty as per the rules and he is innocent. He would submit that the

petitioner being a Government servant working as Executive Engineer having no possibility of fleeing from justice or thwarting with the course of

justice or likelihood of absconding. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.

[7] Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in collusion with the concerned Contractors and other public

servants had released, encashed and paid the amount, not only without the execution of works properly, but also without the relevant documents. He

would submit that there are lot of materials available to connect the petitioner with the present crime and in fact, some incriminating articles were

seized and many were in crucial in the instant case are yet to be seized.

[8] The learned counsel for the State submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner is related to economic offence and grant of anticipatory

bail in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. The learned counsel urged that a preliminary interrogation of the

petitioner was conducted on 8.8.2019 and he has admitted guilty to the charges levelled against him and others. However, the petitioner failed to

render full cooperation to the investigating authority by concealing crucial facts in connection with the charges levelled against him. Therefore, if

anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he will hamper the investigating and thus prayed for dismissal of the petition. In support, the learned

counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 5.9.2019 in Criminal

Appeal No.1340 of 2019.

[9] Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

[10] The case of the petitioner is that without any material or basis, the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police has registered the case against him and in

fact, he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Further case of the petitioner is that based on his official capacity, he had issued 22 work

orders and the same were duly executed by the Contractors and he has released the payments in respect of the aforesaid 22 works after ensuring that

the works were completed.

[11] It appears that earlier petitioner has moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West in Criminal Miscellaneous

(Anticipatory Bail) No.121 of 2019. By an order dated 09.8.2019, the learned Sesslons Judge granted interim anticipatory ball with certain conditions

and adjourned the application to 14.8.2019 for filing report by the Vigilance & Anti Corruption Police. On 17.9.2019, the application was taken up by

the learned Sessions Judge and after hearing both sides, dismissed application holding that the case involved a huge public money to the tune of

Rs.421.72 lakhs and some of the relevant documents are yet to be seized, which are allegedly not existed or kept concealed by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

[12] On 24.9.2019, when the present petition was taken up for hearing, a prayer for interim bail has been made and the learned Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State has opposed for granting interim anticipatory bail contending that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has issued a letter dated

20.8.2019 to the petitioner to produce certain documents, but the petitioner has failed to produce the same. Considering submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court ordered that not to arrest the petitioner and the matter was finally heard and orders were reserved.

[13] The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present petition contending that the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail and grant

of anticipatory ball in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case

of P. Chidambaram (supra).

[14] In P. Chidambaram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the state of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in

collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the

accused knows that he is protected by the order of the Court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely

hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said on have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate

and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.â€​

[15] In P. Chidambaram (supra), the Apex Court having found that there were allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime and the

Enforcement Directorate has collected evidences from various sources and in such circumstances, held that grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant

therein will hamper the investigation. Here, in the case on hand, nothing has been produced by the respondents to show that incriminating evidences

were collected to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Though the learned counsel for the respondents contended that some incriminating

articles were seized, the same have not been produced before this Court.

[16] The respondents have also contended that in order to obtain anticipatory bail, the petitioner has further committed aggravated offence of cheating

by fabricating the documents and in fact, the alleged completion certificate flied along with the anticipatory bail petition are manufactured by the

petitioner by influencing his official capacity.

[17] On a perusal of the work completion report sent by the Contractors and the completion certificates issued by the Executive Engineer, it is clear

that works were entrusted to the Contractors and after completion of the works, the Section Officer/Assistant Engineer inspected the spot and

satisfied the work. The aforesaid work completion reports and the completion reports and the completion certificates though denied by the

respondents, as stated supra, nothing has been produced to show that the same were fabricated by the petitioner. More over, the genuineness of the

work completion reports and completion certificates cannot be gone into at this stage and it is a matter of thorough enquiry.

[18] It is contended by the respondents that none of the works are found to have been executed properly and the petitioner had released/encashed and

paid to the tune of Rs.421.72 Iakhs to the concerned Contractors. Admittedly, the said contention is not supported by documentary evidence. On the

other hand, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced some photographs, which would show that buildings were

constructed and standing on the earth.

[19] It is apposite to mention that no inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory ball. This Court Is

of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future

cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative Intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory

ball should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case.

[20] In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694., the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after

considering various judgments in detail, observed as follows:

“112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant Including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone Imprisonment on conviction by

a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences.

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the

exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code,1860

the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication In the cases is a matter of common knowledge and

concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory ball, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice

should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention

of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the

matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events,

the accused is entitled to an order of bail.â€​

[21] The material on record to which the learned counsel for the respondents has invited attention of this Court does not indicate that the petitioner had

actively connived with co-accused persons in causing loss and misappropriation of crores of rupees. This prima facie finding can be rendered on the

basis of the material presently on record, only limited to deciding the question as to whether the present petition for anticipatory bail can be granted.

There is no doubt about the fact that offences alleged against the petitioner are of an extremely serious nature, however, no proof has been placed on

record to show that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences causing serious financial loss to the Government.

[22] The other important consideration is the likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses during the course of investigation. It is to be analysed as

to whether there is possibility of the petitioner interfering with the course of free and full investigation by influencing witnesses, while enjoying interim

protection. In this regard, the conduct of the petitioner becomes important and there is any material to indicate that the petitioner is interfering with the

investigation. While passing order not to arrest the petitioner on 24.09.2019, this Court directed the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation of the

respondent Police and there is no complaint about the non-cooperation of the petitioner with the respondent Police. Further, as stated supra, no

material on record to indicate that the petitioner was making efforts to influence the investigation, even while enjoying the interim protection granted by

this Court.

[23] The petitioner, being a Government servant working as Executive Engineer, having no possibility of fleeing from justice or thwarting with the

course of justice or likelihood of absconding.

[24] As stated supra, the respondents could not point out any material to show that the petitioner had sought to influence the investigation during the

period when he was enjoying the interim protection as per order dated 24.09.2019 passed by this Court. Considering these facts and the absence of

any indication that the petitioner will flee the process of law, this Court is of the opinion that his application can be granted by imposing appropriate

conditions.

[25] In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, in the event the petitioner is arrested in FIR No.4(8)2019-V&AC PS under

Section 120-B read with 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he shall be released on bail

on the following conditions

(a) He shall furnish personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) and two sureties in the like amount.

(b) He shall cooperate with the investigation.

(c) He shall attend concerned Police Station once a week i.e. on Monday at 10.00 am.

(d) He shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

(e) Needless to say that if the petitioner violates any of the conditions stated above, the relief of anticipatory bail granted to him shall stand

recalled.

(f) It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the question of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and this

Court has not delve into the merits of the offences leveled against the petitioner.