The Manipur High Court has recently emphasized the importance of empathy in police conduct when dealing with individuals who are out on bail.
A single bench of Justice A Guneshwar Sharma was hearing the allegations made by an accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) who claimed to be harassed by the police every year on the eve of Independence Day (January 26) and Republic Day (August 15).
In response to the case, the single bench directed that a copy of the court’s order be forwarded to the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that the police are instructed to treat individuals who are out on bail with empathy. This directive aims to promote a compassionate approach in police dealings with such accused persons.
“Send a copy of this order to the O.C., Imphal P.S. for information and necessary compliance. A copy of this order may also be sent to the Director General of Police for issuing general directions (SoP) in terms of observations and directions made in para 11 to deal with bail-out persons with empathy,” the order reads.
The petitioner in question, who was accused of being associated with a banned militant outfit (PLA/RPF), had been arrested in 2012 and subsequently released on bail after approximately 9 or 10 days. The petitioner contended that his arrest was arbitrary and lacked a prima facie case, further highlighting the lack of progress in the investigation for over a decade.
During the proceedings, the Court was informed that the petitioner currently operated a business and served as the sole provider for his family, including elderly parents, wife, and two young sons. It was brought to the Court’s attention that he faced recurring incidents of being taken into custody from his residence, particularly around Independence Day and Republic Day, during which the police would publicly photograph him. This continuous ordeal tarnished his reputation, violated his right to privacy, and infringed upon his dignity, according to the petitioner.
Seeking a resolution to this distressing situation, the petitioner approached the High Court for relief. He requested either the quashing of charges in the First Information Report (FIR) or a directive to the authorities to conclude the investigation within a specific timeframe.
The State authorities challenged the petitioner’s claims, asserting that due to Manipur’s susceptibility to insurgency, individuals who have been granted bail or have surrendered may be called to the police station to check on their well-being and provide guidance.
The Court acknowledged that the only explanation provided for the delay in concluding the investigation against the petitioner was the failure to apprehend his alleged associates. However, given the serious nature of offenses under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and their implications for national security, the Court deemed it inappropriate to dismiss the FIR based on technicalities alone.
Consequently, the bench directed the relevant authorities to complete the investigation within six months and file a chargesheet within this timeframe before the concerned court.
