Manipur High Court
Shri Sanjit Konthoujam vs The Officer In Charge on 13 July, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
2026:MNHC:132
Item Nos. 29-30
Digitally IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Lucy signed by
Lucy
AT IMPHAL
Gurum Gurumayum
Date:
AB No. 14 of 2025
ayum 2026.07.15
13:00:28
With
+05'30'
Crl. M.C. No. 19 of 2025
1. Shri Sanjit Konthoujam, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri
Konthoujam Ibobi Singh of Nambol Phoijing Awang
Leikai, P.O & P.S Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur
- 795134.
...Petitioner/s
Vrs.
1. The Officer in Charge, City Police Station, Imphal
West District.
2. Shri Ngangom Bikram Singh, aged about 42 years,
S/o Ng. Mani Singh of Brahmapur Thangjam Leikai,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
...Respondent/s
-B E F O R E-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner : Mr. A. Viscount, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Y. Ashang, Sr. Advocate & PP
Mrs. R.K. Emily, Dy. GA
Date of hearing : 13.07.2026.
Date of order : 13.07.2026.
AB No. 14 of 2025 Page 1
2026:MNHC:132
(O R D E R)
[1] Mr. A. Viscount, learned counsel appeared on behalf
of the petitioner, and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Sr. Advocate and PP
assisted by Mrs. R.K. Emily, learned Dy. GA appeared on behalf
of the respondent no. 1. None appeared on behalf of the
respondent no. 2.
I have heard at length the submission advance by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to grant
of pre arrest bail.
[2] Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Sr. Advocate and PP raise a
preliminary point regarding grant of pre arrest bail to the
petitioner in connection with FIR No. 9(01)2025 u/s
379/420/406/34 IPC and later on added section 468 IPC.
[3] It has been pointed out by the learned PP that the
petitioner earlier approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court (FTC), Manipur East by filling an application for grant
of pre arrest bail, which was registered as Cril. Misc (A.B) Case
No. 6 of 2025 in connection with the above mention FIR case. By
an order dated 24.01.2025 passed in the aforesaid bail
application, the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East,
AB No. 14 of 2025 Page 2
2026:MNHC:132
grant an interim pre arrest bail to the petitioner with the condition,
inter alia, that the petitioner is to cooperate with the investigation
and to present himself to the investigating officer for interrogation
as an when required by the I.O.
[4] The said pre arrest bail was made absolute by the
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East by passing an
order dated 06.03.2025 in the said bail application subject to the
term and conditions imposed on petitioner while granting the said
interim pre arrest bail, vide order dated 24.01.2025.
[5] The learned PP also submitted that after granting pre
arrest bail by the learned Trial Court, the I.O of the case issue
various summons to the petitioner for appearance of the
petitioner in connection with the investigation of the case,
however, the petitioner never gave any cooperation to the I.O
during the investigation in connection with the said FIR case. As
the petitioner have violated the terms and conditions for granting
his pre arrest bail, the prosecution file an application for
cancellation of the pre arrest bail, which was registered as Cril.
Misc Case No. 26 of 2025. The said application was allowed by
the Trial Court by passing an order dated 03.05.2025 thereby
cancelling the earlier order dated 06.03.2025 confirming the pre
arrest bail granted to the petitioner and directing the I.O. of the
AB No. 14 of 2025 Page 3
2026:MNHC:132
case to take necessary steps to arrest the petitioner forthwith and
to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.
[6] The learned PP submitted that as the petitioner has
failed to cooperate in the investigation of the case and as he has
violated the conditions for grant of pre arrest bail, there is no
question of allowing the present application, specially when the
petitioner has not challenged the earlier order passed by the Trial
Court cancelling his pre arrest bail.
[7] Mr. A. Viscount, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that because of the threat perception from
the some armed underground elements to his life, the petitioner
could not give any cooperation with the investigation of the case.
It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
application filed by the petitioner for allowing his interrogation by
the Investigating Officer through V.C. mode was also rejected. In
such a situation, the petitioner was not able to give any
cooperation. The learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation if he
is given 2 or 3 weeks’ time.
[8] I have considered the submission advance by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties. On examination of the
record it is found that despite the pre arrest bail granted by the
AB No. 14 of 2025 Page 4
2026:MNHC:132
Trial Court and despite various summons issued by the I.O of the
case to the petitioner for his cooperation in the investigation, the
petitioner has not even wrote any letter either to the concern I.O
or to the concern SP informing them about the threat perception
to his life and requesting for providing security so as to enable
him to cooperate with the investigation of the case. In view of
such a factual position, this court is not incline to accept the
submission advance on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this
Court find no ground or reason for allowing the present
application. In the result, the present application as well as the
connected application are hereby dismissed.
JUDGE
Lucy
AB No. 14 of 2025 Page 5
