A person should not be harassed to satisfy personal vendetta of complainant

Manipur High Court: A petition under Section 438 CrPC, filed for grant of anticipatory bail, was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

The petitioner, working as Project Director in MOBC, was accused of misappropriation of large amounts of money meant for students’ scholarships. The petitioner alleged that the FIR against him was filed by the Member Secretary, MOBC, in order to harass him. He alleged that the charges against him were unsubstantiated. He filed the petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

The High Court perused the record and found that there were serious allegations against the petitioner of misappropriating large amounts of money. The investigation was not yet complete. Any action putting fetters on powers of investigating agency was uncalled for. The Court referred to HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J Mannan, (2010) 1 SCC 679, where it was held that a person should not be allowed to suffer the harassment or humiliation in order to satisfy grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. However, in facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court found that petitioner’s allegations of harassment by the Member Secretary did not hold ground as there were prima facie material against the petitioner-accused. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed. [Salaudin Khan v. State of Manipur, 2018 SCC OnLine Mani 47, dated 24-5-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.