Bail Appln. 870/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 870/2010 % Date of Decision: 3rd June, 2010 THOUNAOJAM SHYAMKUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr Ghanshyam Sharma, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sunil Sharma, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a petition for grant of interim bail to the petitioner for a period of two months in case FIR No. 70/2006 under Sections 18/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/9 of the Official Secret Act read with Section 120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station- Special Cell. 2. The petitioner is a sitting Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was the Deputy Speaker of the Manipur Bail Appln. 870/2010 Page 2 of 4 Legislative Assembly and Chairman of three Statutory House Committees. The petitioner was elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) while in judicial custody in the aforesaid case. The petitioner resigned from the post of Deputy Speaker and three Committees before he surrendered in the Court on 18th April, 2009. 3. The petitioner has availed the benefit of interim bail after his arrest for the period from 14th March, 2007 till 18th April, 2009, i.e., for about two years vide various orders passed by this Court extending his interim bail from time to time. The petitioner was again admitted to interim bail vide order of the Sessions Judge for the period from 7th January, 2010 to 4th February, 2010. The petitioner was also granted interim bail for 15 days vide order passed by this Court on 8th March, 2010. Thereafter, the interim bail granted to the petitioner was extended till 14th April, 2010 on 5th April, 2010. 4. The petition states that riots have erupted in the State of Manipur in which several persons have been killed and injured, in the wake of the ban imposed by the Government of Manipur, on Naga leader Muivah, on his proposed visit to his native village in Manipur. The petition states that there is a civil war like situation in the entire State of Manipur. It further states that on 6th May, 2010 the Chief Minister of Manipur was also summoned by the Union Home Minister to discuss the situation. It is also stated that there have been fresh instances of violence over the Naga leader’s proposed visit to Manipur and seven Naga MLA’s in Manipur have resigned protesting the Government decision. In a nutshell there is political unrest in Manipur Bail Appln. 870/2010 Page 3 of 4 because of the violence. The petition thereafter states that the petitioner being a sitting Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly is required to be in Manipur among the people of his constituency where huge public property have been damaged and some people have died. It is also stated by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Chief Minister of Manipur has also given oral instructions to MLA’s to be in their respective constituency to help maintain peace and harmony among people. 5. This Court vide order dated 14th May, 2010 had called for a status report. The same has been placed on record and has been perused by me. 6. It is seen that the petitioner is an MLA and was admitted to interim bail on four earlier occasions as stated above and has never misused the concession granted to him. It is further seen that the petitioner had surrendered to custody immediately on expiry of period of his interim bail as granted earlier. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner being a Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, has the constitutional duty to be among his constituents at a time when the State and his constituency is plagued by riots. It would go a long way if the petitioner as an MLA assists the Government and the administration in normalizing the situation. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner be released on bail for a period of one month from the date of his release subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum Bail Appln. 870/2010 Page 4 of 4 of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found misusing the interim bail granted by this Court, then the State may get this order revoked forthwith. The petitioner shall surrender before the authorities on the expiry of the period of interim bail hereby granted to him. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. JUNE 03, 2010 mk