Manipur High Court
Laimayum Sachikanta Sharma vs Officer In Charge on 31 March, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed Item no. 4 & 5
OINAM by OINAM
THOIBA MEITEI IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
THOIBA Date:
2026.03.31
AT IMPHAL
MEITEI 17:57:04
+05'30' AB No. 13 of 2026 with
Crl. M.C. No. 14 of 2026
Laimayum Sachikanta Sharma
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
Officer in Charge, Imphal Police Station
.... Respondent
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
31.03.2026
[1] Heard Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
[2] The petitioner is one of the accused in the FIR No. 307(09) 2025
IPS U/S 316(2), 318(4) & Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The allegation in the FIR is
that the petitioner and other forced the complainant to invest Rs. 5,22,000/-
(Rupees five lakh twenty two thousand) only in SBG Global Ecosystem and after
that money has been misappropriated by the petitioner and others. Since the
petitioner did not appear before the I.O., the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal
West issued non-bailable warrant vide order dated 04.02.2026 in Cril. Misc. Case
No. 67 of 2026. Earlier, bail application under section 482 of BNSS, 2023 was
rejected by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East in Cril. Misc.
(AB) Case No. 27 of 2026 vide order dated 27.03.2026 mainly on the ground that
the petitioner has failed to join investigation, he remained absconding and non-
bailable warrant was issued against him.
[3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whole
offences are punishable with imprisonment of up to 7(seven) years as per the
ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014)
8 SCC 273″ and “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51″, no
arrest for offences punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years. It is prayed
that interim protection may be granted to the petitioner.
[4] Issue notice. [5] Mr. L. Somorendro Roy, learned jr. Govt. counsel assisting Mr. H.
Samarjit, learned PP accept notice on behalf of sole respondent. Hence, service
is complete on the respondent. The learned PP prays for 2(two) week’s time for
filing objection.
[6] The learned PP has objected to the prayer for interim protection
of the petitioner on the ground that the anticipatory bail application was filed
before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur after issuance of non-
bailable warrant by the Ld. CJM, Imphal West and in terms of the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “2012(8) SCC 730” the anticipatory bail is not
maintainable against the issue of warrant and the petitioner has to approach the
Court which has issued warrant.
[7] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has filed an application on 16.03.2026 before the Ld. CJM, Imphal West for recall
of non-bailable warrant before the disposal of the anticipatory bail application by
the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge.
[8] In the circumstances, prayer for interim relief will be considered
on the filing of objection by the respondent. However, it is made clear that
pendency of the present anticipatory bail application shall not bar the learned
CJM for considering the application for recall/cancellation of non-bailable warrant
as per law.
[9] List these cases on 29.04.2026.
JUDGE
Thoiba