Manipur High Court
Khwairakpam Maipaksana Singh vs Officer-In-Charge on 19 May, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
KABORA Digitally signed
MBAM byKABORAMBAM
SAPANA SAPANA CHANU
Item Nos. 18 & 19
Date: 2026.05.20
CHANU 16:49:38 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
AB No. 12 of 2026
Khwairakpam Maipaksana Singh, aged about 52 years S/O.
Kh. Pabung Singh, a resident of Awang Sekmai Makha Leikai,
PO & P.S Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
.......Petitioner
Vs.
1. Officer-in-Charge, Sekmai Police Station, Manipur
2. Smt. Khwairakpam Romita Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o
Thangjam Samananda Singh of Sekmai Mayai Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West, Manipur.
3. Smt. Maisnam Usharani Devi, aged about 36 years, W/o
Khwairakpam Ranjit Singh of Sekmai Mayai Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
4. Smt. Yumlembam Romila Devi (M/o Usham Wicania), aged
about 41 years, W/o Usham Romeo of Awang Sekmai
Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
5. Smt. Heisnam Subhasini Devi, aged about 41, W/o U.
Robert Singh & D/o H. Ibomcha Singh of Awang Sekmai
Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
.......... Respondents
With
Cril. M.C. No. 13 of 2026
Khwairakpam Maipaksana Singh, aged about 52 years S/O.
Kh. Pabung Singh, a resident of Awang Sekmai Makha Leikai,
PO & P.S Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
.......Applicant/Petitioner
Vs.
Officer-in-Charge, Sekmai Police Station, Manipur
.......... Respondent
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner : H. Chandrakumar Singh, Advocate
For the respondents : Y. Ashang, Sr. Advocate & PP
Y. Robert, Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 19.05.2026
Date of Order : 19.05.2026
ORDER (ORAL)
[1] Heard Mr. H. Chandrakumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned senior
counsel and PP assisted by Mr. Y. Robert, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
[2] The present application has been filed by the
petitioner under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting anticipatory bail in the event
of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 3 (1) 2026 SEK-PS U/S.
115 (1)/118 (1)/131/74 BNS 2023, Sec.8 POCSP Act & 25 (1-C)
Arms Act.
[3] The brief facts of the case is that on a complaint
dated 25.01.2026 made by the Mothers of 4 (four) minor girls to
the officer-in-charge, Sekmai Police Station, an FIR No. 3 (1) 2026
SEK-PS U/S. 115 (1)/118 (1)/131/74 BNS 2023, Sec.8 POCSP Act
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 2
& 25 (1-C) Arms Act was registered on 25.01.2026 against the
petitioner. After registration of the said FIR, the concerned
officer-in-charge, Sekmai Police Station issued a notice dated
03.02.2026 under section 35 (3) of the BNSS informing the
petitioner to appear before the officer-in-charge at Sekmai Police
Station on 04.03.2026 at 10:00 am in connection with the said
FIR.
When the petitioner did not appear before the police
personnel pursuant to the said notice dated 03.02.2026, the
police personnel visited the house of the petitioner. However, the
petitioner was found to be absent. Subsequently, the officer-in-
charge, Sekmai Police Station issued another notice dated
11.03.2026 under sub-section (3) of section 35 of the BNSS, 2023
informing the petitioner to appear before the Juvenile Justice
Police, Imphal West, SP on 12.03.2026 at 10:30 am to ascertain
the fact and circumstances of the complaint made against the
petitioner. Despite the said notice, the petitioner did not appear
before the Police Personnel and he also remained absent without
extending any co-operation to the Police Personnel.
AB No. 12 of 2026 With Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 3 [4] As the petitioner remained absent and failed to give
any co-operation to the Police Personnel with regard to the
investigation in connection with the said FIR, the I.O. of the case
moved an application before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO),
Imphal West, which was registered as Cril. Misc. Case No. 45 of
2026 for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the
petitioner.
The said application was disposed of by the Special
Judge (POCSO), Imphal West by an order dated 23.03.2026
issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
Despite the best efforts made by the Police, the petitioner is still
absconding without extending any co-operation to the Police
Personnel in connection with the investigation of the FIR case.
[5] The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the alleged incident occurred in the evening of 24.01.2026
and the petitioner left for Guwahati in connection with the medical
treatment of his brother on the next date, i.e. on 25.01.2026 and
as such, the petitioner has no knowledge either of the registration
of the FIR or the notice issued by the Police Personnel. Therefore,
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 4
the petitioner could not extend any co-operation to the Police
Personnel with regard to the investigation of the case.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that on coming to know about the raid being
carried out by the Police Personnel to his residence and on being
apprehensive about his arrest, the petitioner moved an
application before the Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West
registered as Cril. Misc. (AB) Case No. 08 of 2026 for granting
anticipatory bail. However, the said application was rejected by
the Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West by an order dated
23.03.2026.
[6] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that in the notice dated 03.02.2026 issued by the O.C.
Sekmai Police Station under Section 35 (3) BNSS, the petitioner
was informed to appear before him on 04.03.2026. However,
without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before
the Police Personnel on the said date and time, the police took
out raids at the house of the petitioner for arresting him.
Apprehending such arrest, the petitioner has taken recourse to
filing the present application for grant of anticipatory bail. The
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 5
learned counsel submitted that the action of the Police Personnel
trying to arrest him without giving an opportunity to appear
before the Police Personnel on the date fixed by them is arbitrarily
and raised apprehension of being arrested by the Police
Personnel.
[7] The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is presently working as a Businessman in his
local areas and he is also working as Hony. Secretary of the DM
Rao Football Club, Imphal West, Manipur. It has also been
submitted that the petitioner intends to plunge into electoral
politics by contesting the much-anticipated local body elections.
[8] In view of the above, the petitioner in order to avoid
any stigma to his status in the society does not want to be
arrested by the Police and that the petitioner intends to give full
co-operation to the Police Personnel with regard to the
investigation of the case after obtaining anticipatory bail so as to
preserve his status in the society.
[9] Mr. Y. Ashang, learned senior counsel and PP
appearing for the petitioner submitted that after issuing notice
under section 35 (3) BNSS and when the petitioner did not
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 6
present himself before the Police Personnel, the Police Personnel
conducted raids at the house of the petitioner, however, he was
not found at his residence and the petitioner is evading from
arrest in connection with the case. As the petitioner remained
absconding and failed to extend any co-operation to the Police
Personnel with regard to the investigation of the case, the I.O. of
the case filed an application before the Special Court (POCSO),
Imphal West for issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest against
the petitioner and the said application was allowed by the Special
Court (POCSO) by issuing Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest against
the petitioner.
[10] The learned PP submitted that the petitioner has till
today neither approach the Spl. Court for recalling or cancellation
of the said Non-Bailable Warrant against him nor has the
petitioner extended any co-operation to the Police Personnel with
regard to the investigation of the case. It has also been submitted
that as the petitioner himself claims to be a very influential person
in the locality, there is a strong suspicion that he would influence
or threaten the witnesses of the case and the minor victim girls,
thereby causing hindrances and failure in the smooth
investigation of the case, especially when there has been
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 7
accusation against the petitioner that he threaten the minor girls
by holding a small firearm. It has also been submitted that the
present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable inasmuch
as there has been a judicial order issuing Non-Bailable Warrant of
arrest by the concerned Special Court and the said order is still in
force.
[11] The learned PP submitted that in view of the serious
nature of allegations made against the petitioner by the minor
girls and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a
very influential person in the locality, the custody of the petitioner
and his interrogation to find out the real facts of the case are
required and as such, the Anticipatory Bail needs to be rejected.
[12] I have heard at length the rival submission advanced
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also
carefully considered all the materials available on record.
It is on record that the Special Judge (POCSO),
Imphal West rejected the earlier Anticipatory Bail Application filed
by the petitioner on the ground that the materials on record
appears to support the allegation of section 8 of POCSO Act
against the petitioner which prescribes for punishment of sexual
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 8
assault and the alleged use of firearm is also something which
needs to be probed in detail. As on today, when this Anticipatory
Bail Application is heard on merit, nothing has been brought on
record that the petitioner is willing and ready to cooperate with
the investigation of the case and that the petitioner is still
absconding from arrest despite the Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest
issued by the Special Court (POCSO), Imphal West. It is also on
record that till today, the petitioner has not even approached the
Special Court (POCSO) for recalling or cancelling the said Non-
Bailable Warrant of arrest.
[13] In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the
present application. Accordingly, the present Bail Application as
well as the connected miscellaneous application are hereby
dismissed.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sapana
AB No. 12 of 2026 With
Crl. M.C. No. 13 of 2026 Page 9
