Jhalajit files for anticipatory bail
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, February 16 2017:
Following an interrogation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him for two consecutive days in connection with the reinvestigation into the July 23 BT Road firing incident, Commandant of 2nd IRB, Dr Ak Jhalajit filed anticipatory bail in the Court of Sessions Judge Imphal West, Maibam Manojkumar today.
Acting on it, the Court called for objection report with case diary if any, returnable from police on March 2 and fixed the day for hearing the infamous case.
Dr Ak Jhalajit (53) the then Additional SP Imphal West, resident of Thoubal Wangma Taba presently staying at Moirangkhom Chingakham Leikai filed the anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC pleading to grant the prayer in the event of his arrest.
The anticipatory bail was registered as Cril Misc (AB) case as State of Manipur versus Dr Ak Jhalajit with reference to RC 1 (5) 2010 Imphal dated January 16, 2010 u/s 302/34IPC and 27 Arms Act, 1959 and RC 2 (S) 2010 Imphal dated January 5, 2010 u/s 302/326/307/506 IPC and Section 17/20 of UA (P) Act and Section 25 (1-B) Arms Act.
The Court heard submission from the moving counsel of the petitioner on the prayer for interim anticipatory bail and the Special Counsel of CBI Imphal Branch.
A copy of the petition was furnished to the Special Counsel of CBI, Imphal branch and prayed for time.
Later the Court perused the application.
The moving counsel submitted that in the month of March 2016, mother of the deceased, Ch Taratombi filed a petition before the Court praying for directing the CBI for further investigation of the case but on March 30 last the petition was rejected by the Court.
Thereafter the CBI approached the Court seeking permission for further investigation and submitted that as called for by the Additional SP CBI, SC II at the CBI, ACB Imphal camp at Lamphelpat on February 15 at 10 am.
The petitioner gave his statement which was similar with the one given before the Investigation Officer of the case under Section 161 CrPC.
The petitioner was again served with another notice on February 15, this time requiring the petitioner to appear before the same person but at different location ie CGO Complex, Delhi at 11 am on February 17 within a short period.
The moving counsel also submitted that there is no reason as to why the CBI chose to call the petitioner to Delhi instead of Imphal where there is a CBI branch in full swing and such branch has been investigating and prosecuting the case.
More apprehension for arresting the petitioner in the case arose as the CBI preferred to call the petitioner repeatedly within such a few days even though the petitioner was examined and his statement recorded very recently on February 14, he stated.
Considering the facts of the case disclosed in the petition and the ground set out for issue of the anticipatory bail, the Court ruled that the interim bail may be granted till the consideration of the matter after the objection report from the police is filed.
The Court directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the case, he shall be released on bail on execution of PR bond of Rs 70, 000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority on the conditions that the petitioner shall be available before the investigating agency and the Court as and when required to do so.
The Court also ruled that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to anyone acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer as well as shall not leave the State of Manipur without prior permission of the Court.
Comment
