Gangmei Gaidon Rongmei v. Directorate Of Enforcement And Another
Court: High Court of Manipur
Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Manipur judgment dated 2024-10-18. Gangmei Gaidon Rongmei v. Directorate Of Enforcement And Another. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Item No. 19 Digitally signed by BIPINCHANDRA SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL AB No. 7 of 2023 Gangmei Gaidon Rongmei . … Petitioner Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. . … Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU Heard Mr. AP Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel appearing for the No. 1 and Mr. Tapan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: i) Allow the petitioner to go on bail in the event of arrest made by the Directorate of Enforcement, Imphal Sub- Zonal Office, Manipur by furnishing necessary appropriate bond/bonds, surety/sureties as deem fit by the Hon’ble Court in connection with the ECIR No. – IMSZO/06/2022 dated 18/10/2022; ii) In the interim, direct the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Imphal Sub-Zonal Officer not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the ECIR No.
– IMSZO/06/2022 dated 18/10/2022; iii) Pass any order/orders direction/directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice. P a g e 1 | 3 Respondent No. 1 is Directorate of Enforcement, represented by its Assistant Director, Imphal Sub-Zonal Office, Manipur having the office at Sangakpham, Chingmeirong, Imphal and the respondent No. 2 is K. Romeo Singh, Engineering Officer i/c, Imphal Municipal Corporation having its office at IMC Office Complex, Kanglapak, Imphal West. They have filed their counter affidavits. It is admitted position of fact that interim order was passed on 27. 04. 2023 with the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, 2. The petitioner shall make available before the Investigating authority, 3. The petitioner shall not influence prosecution witnesses and 4. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Manipur without prior permission of the Court.
Almost after one and half years after passing of the interim order, the investigating authority as well as the complainant had not submitted reports of disobedience of the conditions imposed in the interim order and the instances of not co-operating with the I. O. of the case by the accused and it is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 that the investigation is still going in full swing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that keeping the present petition pending further is not called for. It is also made clear that making absolute the interim order dated 27. 04. 2023 will not tamper the investigation of the case carried on by the I. O. of the case. In the facts and circumstances, the interim order dated 27. 04. 2023 is made absolute with the following conditions: (i) Not to tamper the investigation; (ii) Not to influence the witnesses; P a g e 2 | 3 (iii) To co-operate with the I. O.
of the case;’ (iv) To appear before the I. O. of the case whenever required and asked to do so; (v) Not to leave the State of Manipur without prior permission from this Court. The present petition is disposed of, accordingly . JUDGE Bipin P a g e 3 | 3
Source: High Court of Manipur. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.