As mandated by Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a person in police custody must be produced before a court within 24 hours of arrest. The constitution casts the duty on the court to secure the rights of the arrested persons and hence, the decision to grant bail or not grant bail to such a person is the duty of the magistrate, not the police. However, an incident of a glaring misuse of the law has come to light in Manipur.
By Paojel Chaoba
In any state in India, the police force is empowered to arrest an individual and charge them with non-bailable offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, it cannot, under any circumstances, release the person without producing the arrested person before the concerned court.
As mandated by Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a person in police custody must be produced before a court within 24 hours of arrest. The constitution casts the duty on the court to secure the rights of the arrested persons and hence, the decision to grant bail or not grant bail to such a person is the duty of the magistrate, not the police. However, an incident of a glaring misuse of the law has come to light in Manipur.
On May 29, the officer-in-charge (OC) of Churachandpur police station, N. Ingocha Singh, acting as the complainant in a suo motu case, arrested 19-year-old Paominthang Haokip, a resident of Old Gelmol, Churachandpur.
The first information report (FIR) in the case, FIR number 88(05)2022 CCP-PS, was signed by Singh and officially registered at 8:30 pm on May 27.
SEE FIR COPY: FIR COPY CCPUR
The FIR stated that one anonymous individual, known as ‘Pm Rudo Hk’, had sent a comment in a WhatsApp group titled ‘Dr Mark T Haokip Supporter’ which said, in the Kuki dialect, “Biren thim tha nadi ngai tu ute’ (Let’s kill [Manipur chief minister] Biren [Singh] secretly).”
The Churchandpur area of Manipur has witnessed violent protests after Mark Haokip, described by the police as the leader of a Kuki secessionist group, was arrested in Delhi.
Singh, in the FIR, stated that the comment had gone viral on social media, had caused large-scale rioting and that the situation was likely to turn communal.
“The comment thereby causing provocation, insulting to the Chief Minister, his ruling Government, his family members and Government functionaries. The comment also inciting communal feelings, alarm, creating or promoting enmity, or ill-will between classes in the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community which is likely to break public peace, fear or alarm to the public tranquilities. The unknown person is definitely and deliberately comments with the intention of inducing or compelling the Chief Minister of the state to exercise or refrain from exercising in any manner any of the lawful power of the Chief Minister (sic),” the FIR read.
Hence, the OC considered the liability of the comment and took up the case suo motu, punishable under Sections 124 (assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power), 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity or hatred), 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication) and 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy).
Sections 124 and 505 (2) are non-bailable offences.
Haokip was arrested based on the FIR and charged under the aforementioned IPC Sections on May 29. The police also informed the duty magistrate, through the prosecution, for producing the arrested person and the remand prayer sought five days of police custody.
Interestingly, the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) Janggoulen Haokip waited for the accused to be produced before him, but the accused never arrived.
Only later was it brought to the attention of the magistrate that the arrested person was free by the police without following the due process of law. Why and under what conditions or pressure the police broke the law is still not known.
The Churachandpur police also issued a clarification to a local paper, Sangai Express, which had earlier reported the arrest of Paominthang Haokip. The clarification on May 29, under the heading, ‘SP Clarifies’, said that the SP of the district claimed that Paominthang Haokip was never arrested, nor was any FIR registered against him.
The clarification issued in Sangai Express on May 29.
This clarification irked the concerned magistrate as the authority of the court was undermined and the constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens were violated by the district police.
Following the police clarification in local media, the magistrate sought a formal clarification from the police on the matter.
In an order dated June 1, 2022, the magistrate directed the OC, Churachandpur, to issue a clarification on the news report, as it contradicted the fact that the magistrate was informed of the arrest and the imminent production of the accused – which never happened.
SEE JUNE 1 ORDER: Notice_Order JUNE 1 CCPUR
“In the light of the chain of events dated 29-05-2022 and various documents…. exposes a glaring irregularity in the functioning of the District Police. Incidents such as the present cast doubt on institution which are for the protection of citizen rights,” the order read. Further, the magistrate ordered Singh to appear before him on June 3.
Singh duly appeared before the court on June 3 and submitted that perhaps an FIR was registered against the accused, Paominthang Haokip, even though the FIR showed his own signature appended to it. Interestingly, he also submitted that all the aforementioned events were done under the instructions of his superior officer.
CJM Haokip, in his order, reflected, “It must be clarified that the court is not questioning the power of arrest by the concerned police, nor is this court questioning the arrest of the particular person as long as it follows the procedural mandate of the CrPC.”
“Rather, what this court is questioning,” the order continued, “is the flip flopping of conflicting statements by the district police, forwarding a FIR copy to court along with remand prayer for five days and while the remand procedure were about to commence, the taking away of the accused person from the residence of the duty magistrate followed by a media clarification the next day stating no FIR was registered and that the said accused person was never arrested brings to light the functioning of the district police.”
“I must also add that the OC’s submission with respect to the said FIR being cancelled is something unheard of and is beyond the procedure in CrPC,” the court added.
SEE JUNE 3 ORDER: ORDER JUNE 3_SP_CCPUR
Following the appearance of OC and his bizarre statement in the court, the CJM’s court further directed the SP Churachandpur, to appear before the court on June 8 on the matter.
A local lawyer, on the condition of anonymity, told this correspondent, “Where is the separation of powers? If the police can act as judge also, as shown in this case, what is the need for the courts? What happened to the rule of law, to the system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive and the judiciary? Let us see if the Manipur high court intervenes in the matter.”
(Paojel Chaoba is Executive Editor, The Frontier Manipur. This news report was first published in The Wire on Jun 13, 2022)