The tribunal of Special Magistrate (NIA), Imphal West on Monday, regarding the alteration or revision of the bail decree of Mark Haokip, proclaimed that the two appeals from the Manipur authority to annul or modify the bail order dated March 28, 2023, are legally inadmissible as prohibited by regulations embodied in S.362 CrPC.
On March 28, 2023, the Special Magistrate (NIA), Imphal West, had kept the bail decree granted to Mark Thangmang Haokip in “suspension until further notice” and dispatched notification to him via the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail.
He was granted bail by the Special Magistrate, Imphal West, after which the state lodged two appeals to the Special Magistrate (NIA), Imphal West disputing the decree.
Mark Thangmang Haokip was apprehended from Kishangarh, New Delhi on May 24, 2022, on the accusation of scheming to wage war against the Government of India by identifying himself as the head of a ‘separatist faction’ Government of People’s Democratic Republic of Kukiland.
However, he was granted bail on March 27, 2023, upon submitting a PR bond amounting Rs 2 lakh with two guarantors of the same amount. Challenging the bail decree, the government lodged the appeal seeking the tribunal to annul or modify the decree.
Moreover, the defendant’s spouse lodged a bail application to the High Court of Manipur but it was dismissed with an instruction to the Special Magistrate (NIA) to examine and decide the application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. lodged on behalf of the Joint Secretary, seeking annulment of the bail expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from Monday.
“Directives were given without delving into the substance of the criminal revision. The High Court did not deliberate on the extent of S.439 (2) Cr.P.C. and has not explicitly imposed any constraints on this Tribunal to consider all matters of fact and law except an instruction to examine and decide the application expeditiously”, declared the Special Magistrate (NIA).
In the Special Magistrate (NIA) verdict it is stated that by observing relevant judgement of the Supreme Court a fresh plea for bail can be entertained “under certain changed circumstances” and conditions of bail could also be altered if a case is made out for such alteration “based on that factor”.
The ratio rather fortifies the contention of the petitioner that the same tribunal is not authorized to annul a bail decree already granted except when the defendant has misbehaved or certain overriding circumstances necessitate such annulment.
The sole grounds presented for seeking annulment/modification of the bail decree are that this tribunal has not considered the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in Bail Application appropriately and that the grant of bail in cases involving UA (P) Act should be very stringent. It is not the case that any development had occurred during the intervening period of March 28, 2023, and March 29, 2023, or that the defendant or his agent had engaged in any activity prejudicial to the trial of the case after he was granted bail.
The tribunal decided to reassess the facts and circumstances of miscellaneous cases while appeals filed under S.439 (2) Cr.P.C. for annulment/modification are not legally permissible as barred by the regulations embodied in S.362 Cr.P.C.
