Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Looting Weapon From State Armoury In Relation To Manipur Conflict

The accused/appellant, Moirangthem Anand Singh, is alleged to be an active member of People Liberation Army (PLA), a declared terrorist organisation under the UAPA. As per the prosecution's case, the appellant was apprehended wearing camouflaged clothing, posing as a police officer and in possession of weapons looted from the State Armoury.

The NIA filed charges against the appellant under Sections 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 23 (Enhanced penalties) and 39 (Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organization) of UAPA. The appellant's bail application was rejected by the Special Court, NIA. He thus filed the present appeal seeking bail.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma considered the facts and evidence on record. The Court noted that the accused/appellant was apprehended when the “entire state was engulfed in a fierce violent encounter between two ethnic groups”.

The Court noted that the NIA's investigation substantiated the allegation that the recovered weapons were a part of cache looted from various State Armouries. It noted that approximately 4000 weapons were stated to be looted from police stations/Armouries in Manipur.

The Court opined that there was a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 18 of the UAPA.

Further, the Court observed that after the arrest of the appellant along with other accused, a law and order situation was created and a 48-hour bandh was called by local groups. It noted that the local groups campaigned on the electronic media to mobilize youths to storm police stations seeking the release of the accused, including the appellant.

It noted that the events after the appellant's arrest indicated that he commanded influence in the local area. It remarked

“The propensity of such situations being created i.e., attacks on police stations, pressure on local police officials (as is evident from the GD entries of the IO), pressure on the Public Prosecutors, pressure on the Court, etc., is a cause for serious concern. The Appellant enjoys substantial local support and releasing him on bail at this stage could also lead to further deterioration of the law and order situation.”

The Court thus observed that releasing the appellant on bail entails flight risk, the possibility of influencing the witnesses and deterioration of law and order.

“Considering the volatile situation that exists in Manipur and the circumstances that had earlier led to his release on bail, including the protests, it can clearly be said that enlarging the Appellant on bail would not only entail flight risk but also the possibility of witnesses being influenced in the present case as also deterioration of law and order.”

With these observations, the Court denied bail to the appellant.

Case title: Moirangthem Anand Singh vs. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 407