Court dismisses plea objecting bail to Mark Haokip

By Our Staff Reporter
IMPHAL, May 21: The Court of the Special Judge NIA, Imphal West has disposed of applications for dismissing bail granted to Mark Thangmang Haokip as "not maintainable".
The NIA Court had granted the bail to Mark Thangmang Haokip, president of an outfit called the Government of People's Democratic Republic of Kukiland, on March 28 last year.
Yesterday, the Court heard two applications filed by the State to set aside or modify the bail order and observed that it was not maintainable.
Notably, after Mark Thangmang Haokip was arrested on May 30, 2022 on the charge of involving in conspiracy for secession from India and in waging or attempting to wage a war or abetting waging of war against the Government of India.
In June 2022, Mark filed a bail application and was rejected by the NIA Court. He then approached the High Court, which also rejected the bail plea on November 2, 2022.
Afterwards, Mark filed two more bail applications, which the NIA Court heard and issued a common order granting him bail on March 28, 2023.
After Mark was granted bail and before he could furnish the bail bond, the State Government filed two applications before the Court seeking it to modify or set aside the bail order.
Mark's wife Lhaneikham Lhouvum filed an application to dismiss the applications by raising the "issue of maintainability".
In the two applications, the State contended that the November 2, 2022 judgement order of the High Court which rejected the bail application has "attained finality as the same has not been reviewed or reversed by any Court."
It submitted that in the passing of the common order of bail, the NIA Court might have  not fully examined the judgement order of the High Court.
The State further argued that the FIR case against Mark involves the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, wherein the granting of bail is very strict in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court of India passed in various cases.
Hearing the submissions, the NIA Court observed that the grounds for seeking the setting aside or modification of the bail order lack relevance.
The only grounds submitted for seeking setting aside/modification of the bail are that this Court has not considered the judgement and order passed by the High Court, and that the grant of bail involving UAPA should be very strict. The ground is not that any development has taken place or the accused or his agent has done anything prejudicial to the trial of the case after he was granted bail, observed the Court.
Allowing the cases would amount to this Court reviewing its own order based on the same facts and circumstances as they stood at the time the bail order was passed.
The Court further quoted Section 362 CrPC which provides that " Court, when it has signed its judgement or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."
This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the applications for setting aside/modifying the bail order are not maintainable as barred by the principles embodied in Section 362 of CrPC, said the Court, disposing of the applications.