The court of Special Judge (NIA), Imphal West on Monday, in connection with setting aside or modifying the bail order of Mark Haokip, stated that the Manipur government’s two applications of setting aside or modifying bail order passed on March 28, 2023 is not maintainable as barred by principles embodied in S.362 CrPC.
On March 28, 2023, the Special Judge (NIA), Imphal West, had kept the bail order granted to Mark Thangmang Haokip in “abeyance until further order” and issued notice to him through the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail.
He was given bail by the Special Judge, Imphal West, following which the state filed two applications to the Special Judge (NIA), Imphal West challenging the order.
Mark Thangmang Haokip was arrested from Kishangarh, New Delhi on May 24, 2022, on the charge of hatching a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India by identifying himself as the president of a ‘separatist outfit’ Government of People’s Democratic Republic of Kukiland.
He, however, was granted bail on March 27, 2023 on furnishing a PR bond amounting Rs 2 lakh with two sureties of the same amount. Challenging the bail order, the government filed the application seeking the court to cancel or modify the order.
Further, the accused’s wife filed a bail application to the High Court of Manipur but it was rejected with a direction to the Special Judge (NIA) to hear and determine the application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Joint Secretary, seeking cancellation of the bail expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from Monday.
“Directions were made without entering into the merit of the criminal revision. The High Court did not discuss the scope of S.439 (2) Cr.P.C. and has not expressly imposed any fetters on this Court to consider all question of fact and law except a direction to hear and determine the application expeditiously”, stated the Special Judge (NIA).
In the Special Judge (NIA) judgement order it is stated that by observing relevant judgement of the Supreme Court a fresh application for bail can be considered “on certain changed circumstance” and conditions of bail could also be varied if a case is made out for such variation “based on that factor”.
The ratio rather strengthens the contention of the petitioner that the same court is not empowered to cancel a bail order already granted except when the accused has misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrants such cancellation.
The only grounds submitted for seeking setting aside/modification of the bail order, are that this court has not considered the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Bail Application properly and that the grant of bail in cases involving UA (P) Act should be very strict. It is not the case that any development had taken place during the intervening period of March 28, 2023 and March 29, 2023 or that the accused or his agent had done anything prejudicial to the trial of the case after he was granted bail.
The court passed to review the facts and circumstances of misc cases while applications filed under S.439 (2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside/modifying are not maintainable as barred by the principles embodied in S.362 Cr.P.C.
