Eight days after release of Kangujam Karnajit Singh, alias KK Singh, who was arrested on charges of fraud, assault and criminal breach of trust, on bail, his ‘wonder daughter’ and alleged climate activist Licypriya Kangujam is also back in action on social media.
After being inactive for over eight months since the arrest of her father KK Singh, Licypriya posted a short video of her taking part in collecting paddy with a hashtag #Villagelife on her Facebook page.
Her first post on 10 February after her father was released on bail on 2 February 2021 attracted 157K views within a week. Since then, she has posted many memories and throwback photos and news clips on her Facebook page with 104K followers.
What grabbed the eyeballs, however, was a post of Licypriya’s photograph with Works Minister Thongam Biswajit Singh, who is contesting from Thongju Assembly Constituency in the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Elections. With the photograph, Licypriya wrote, “With the next CM of Manipur! Not just humble, he is very down to earth leader where we will hard to find in this world. My best wishes! (sic)”
However, the post was removed soon after screen shots of the post started trending on social media platforms.
Licypriya, who remained untraceable by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) despite several efforts since her father’s arrest, posted on 15 February that she has been at her native place Manipur for a few days only.
“Many civil society organizations, social workers, corporate leaders, media and institutions invited me to address various programs and events and requested me for appointment. I wish to interact but due to my tight preoccupied schedule as well as due to my upcoming school final exam, I will be unable to meet you all,” she said.
She also claimed that she was unable to access her twitter, Instagram and all official emails due to “certain restrictions imposed on her for political reasons” in the last 8 months. She alleged that she received several threats to silence her voice. “I highly regret being unable to reply to any of your official emails and invitations related to my environmental activism. I missed you all,” she wrote.
After the arrest of her father KK Singh on charges of fraud, assault and criminal breach of trust, the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) had tried to reach out to the child climate activist after former member Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Rights Keisam Pradipkumar raised concerns over media trial and exposure of a minor girl’s Identity. ‘
In his complaint letter to the DCPCR, Keisam Pradipkumar maintained that these reports defamed her as the “front of her father, questioning the legitimacy of her climate change activism, even challenged the genuineness of awards she has received, without the slightest care of Right to Confidentiality and Privacy of a Child and other legal protections provided by Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) 2015.”
Acting on his complaint, DCPCR took up the process for the care of the child. District Child Protection Unit-South (DCPU-S) and SHO of Safdarjung Enclave Police Station reported that the address of the child could not be found despite several efforts.
According to media reports, many activists and students, who have been duped by Karnajit, alleged that the young girl is being exploited by her father for his own vested interests and for his own career.
It was alleged the Ketto crowdfunding drive launched by Licypriya when India was in the grip of Covid-19 second was orchestrated by KK Singh, using his daughter and climate change activist as a front for his nefarious plan. He was allegedly capitalizing on the fame of his daughter, who made an appeal for donations for Oxygen concentrators to her foreign friends for India on April 21 as updated on her Facebook page.
KK walks free
KK Singh has been in judicial custody after his arrest following the registration of three different FIRs against him. Though a charge-sheet was filed on 22 July 2021 in relation to first FIR under Sections 120-B, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 474 & 34 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, no chargesheet has been framed yet in connection with two other FIRs under sections 406, 420, 468, and 34 IPC and under sections 188, 420 and 34 IPC read with sections 51&53 of DM Act, 2005, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
He was granted bail on 2 February in the first FIR as the charge sheet was filed on 22 July 2021 and the continued incarceration of the applicant would not be required for the purpose of investigation. However, while allowing the bail application, the chief justice of Manipur High Court Sanjay Kumar observed that as darges alleged against him are not of a heinous nature and relate to property offences and fabrication of documents, he would be entitled to the benefit of doubt until proved guilty and suffers a conviction in that regard. Keeping in mind his past antecedents, it would be sufficient if stringent conditions are imposed, he added.
KK Singh secured bail in two other FIRs on February 1 as no chargesheets had been filed in both the FIRs within the statutory period provided Section 167(2) CrPC and he was entitled to grant of regular bail even without consideration of the bail applications on merits.
Details of Sections under which KK Singh was booked
Section 120B of IPC: Punishment of criminal conspiracy: —
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]
Section 418 of IPC: Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect—Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 419 of IPC: Punishment for cheating by personation—Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 420 of IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 465 of IPC: Punishment for forgery— Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 468 of IPC: Forgery for purpose of cheating—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 474 of IPC: Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.—1[Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code], be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with 2[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 of IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]
Section 406 of IPC: Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 188 of IPC: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such an order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
51 of DM act 2005. Punishment for obstruction, etc.—
(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause— —(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause—”
(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences.
53 of DM act 2005. Punishment for misappropriation of money or material, etc.—Whoever, being entrusted with any money or materials, or otherwise being, in custody of, or dominion over, any money or goods, meant for providing relief in any threatening disaster situation or disaster, misappropriates or appropriates for his own use or disposes of such money or materials or any part thereof or wilfully compels any other person so to do, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and also with fine. —Whoever, being entrusted with any money or materials, or otherwise being, in custody of, or dominion over, any money or goods, meant for providing relief in any threatening disaster situation or disaster, misappropriates or appropriates for his own use or disposes of such money or materials or any part thereof or wilfully compels any other person so to do, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and also with fine.”
- Tripura: MBB Airport to get foreign exchange counter
- India doesn’t need to be told what to do on democracy: UNSC President Ruchira Kamboj
- Nagaland: VP Jagdeep Dhankhar visits WW-II memorial in Kohima
- India records 275 new COVID-19 cases, tally of active infections now 4,672
- Centre approves major road reconstruction, bridge conversion projects for Assam: CM
- Two NSCN-U rebels held in Arunachal Pradesh