Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 8 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010115242025
2025:GAU-AS:12245
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1798/2025
NAMEIRAKPAM KIRAN MEITEI
SON OF NAMEIRAKPAM SAMU MEITEI OF NUNGBRANG MAYAI LEIKAI,
P.O.AND P.S. ANDRO, THOUBAL DISTRICT, MANIPUR.
VERSUS
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER (IO) OF THE CBI CASE
NO. RC 05620230012/CBI/SCB/KOLKATA.
OFFICE OF THE HEAD OF BRANCH, CBI, ACB IMPHAL BRANCH, NEAR
D.C. OFFICE, WEST DISTRICT IMPHAL, P.O. LAMPHELPAT, IMPHAL-795004.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N A SINGH, MR M SAHEWALLA,MS N K DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
08.09.2025 Heard Mr. J. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI, appearing for the respondent.
Page No.# 2/18
2. This is the second application filed under Section 480, read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the accused/petitioner, i.e., Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei, who was arrested on 24.07.2023 in connection with Special Case No. 7/2025, arising out of CBI Case No. RC 0562023S0012/CBI/SCB/Kolkata), registered under Sections 120(B)/147/148/149/153A/302/354/354-B/34/376(2)(g) and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)d, 3(1)e, 3(1)g, 3(1)w(i), 3(1)z & 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and substantive offences thereof.
3. Pertinent that the first bail application was rejected on 09.05.2025 in Bail Application No. 1169/2025, considering the heinous nature of the offences, namely allegations of ethnic violence, gang rape, naked parading, and killing of two persons relating to one of the victims, along with the victims' identification of the accused/petitioner.
4. Mr. J. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing for the accused/petitioner, submits that the accused/petitioner has been in custody since 24.07.2023, i.e., for 2 years, 01 months, and 15 days, and yet charges have not been framed till date. He further submits that the order-sheet of the trial court indicates that on the last occasion, due to the non-appearance of the CBI prosecutor, the matter stood adjourned. He accordingly submits that continued incarceration without trial amounts to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following Page No.# 3/18 decisions of the Apex Court: -
(i) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.2787/2024.
(ii) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 2790/2024,
(iii) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51,
(iv) Hussainara Khatoon and Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 31,
(v) Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713.
5. Per contra, Ms. M. Kumari, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI, appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposes the application, citing the seriousness of the allegations and apprehension of threat to victims and witnesses. In support of her submission, she relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri. Darshan etc., in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025.
5.1. She further submits that the second bail application is not maintainable because there is no change of circumstances since the rejection of the earlier bail application. She further submits that there cannot be any review of the rejection order passed in the earlier bail application. In support of the aforesaid submission, she relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: -
Page No.# 4/18
(i) X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378/2024,
(ii) Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors ., reported in AIR 2001 SC 43.
(iii) Sabir Ali v. State of UP, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42031/2024.
6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record, including the Final Report submitted u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. by the C.B.I. SIT Manipur in the trial court and the orders passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati (trial court) in the CBI Case No. RC 0562023S00012/CBI/SCB/Kolkata as furnished before this court by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.
7. Apt at the outset to refer to the relevant paragraphs of this court's order dated 09.05.2025 passed in the first bail application filed by the accused/petitioner, which read as hereunder:-
"3. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification No. 12/1(4)/2023-H(CBI) dated 26.07.2023 issued by the Government of Manipur u/s 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as DSPE Act), and notification F. No. 228/47/2023-AVD-II dated 28.07.2023 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi, under Section 5(1) of the DSPE Act, CBI/SCB/Kolkata has re-registered RC 0562023S0012 on 28.07.2023 by taking over the said FIR No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS dated 21.06.2023 of Nongpok Sekmai P.S., Thoubal District, Page No.# 5/18 Manipur, and its corresponding FIR No. ZERO (91)(5)2023 SKL-PS dated 18.05.2023 of Saikul P.S. District- Kangpokpai registered u/s- 153 A/398/427/436/448/302/354/364/326/376/34 IPC, read with section 25(1-C) of the Arms Act, registered against unknown miscreants numbering about 900-1000 persons.
4. Pertinent that the aforesaid case is registered on the basis of a written complaint of one Mr. Thangboi Vaiphei against unknown miscreants at Saikul P.S., alleging physical assault and gang rape of women victims, murder of the father and brother of one of the victim women, and other offences that took place in and around other villages on 04.05.2023. The brief case of the prosecution as unfolded from reading of the said complaint is that it is alleged inter-alia that on 04.05.2023 at around 3 pm, some unknown miscreants numbering about 900-1000 carrying sophisticated weapons and suspected to be members of Meitei Leepun, Kangleipak Kanba Lup (KKL), Arambai Tenggol and World Meitei Council (WMC), Schedule Tribe Demand Committee (STDC) entered village B. Phainom, Island Sub-Division, Kangpokpi District, Manipur, and vandalized and burnt the houses. It is further alleged that 5 villagers fled towards the forest and rescued by the Nongpok Sekmai Police team, however, on the way they were blocked by the mob, which snatched the 5 villagers from the custody of the police team. It is further alleged that father of one of the victims was killed at the spot and 3 victim women were physically forced to remove their clothes and were stripped naked in front of the mob. It is further alleged that one victim women was brutally gang raped in broad daylight and the younger brother of the victim women was also murdered by the members of the mob, and the 3 victim women managed to escape from the mob with the help of some persons. It is on the basis of the aforesaid complaint a case was registered on 18.05.2023 as FIR bearing No. ZERO (91)(5)2023 SKL-PS. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Nongpok Sekmai P.S. Thoubal district, Manipur, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the said police station, and accordingly, FIR No. 110(06)2023 NSK/PS dated 21.06.2023 was re-registered.
...............................
...............................
9. It appears that pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 19206/2023, the Gauhati High Court issued Page No.# 6/18 notification on 31.08.2023 designating the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Assam at Guwahati for trying the case relating to Manipur violence, including the instant case. It appears that during the pendency of the instant bail application, CBI after completion of the investigation has filed Charge-sheet before the trial Court. It further appears that the trial Court is yet to take cognizance of the Charge- sheet.
10. A perusal of the case record, including the case diary, it reveals that during the course of the investigation, statement from three victims as well as one witness were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It further appears that all the 3 victims and the independent witness have disclosed about the naked parading, physical and sexual assault and gang rape of victim no.1 and victim no.2, murder of father and brother of victim no.1 and physical assault of victim no.3 by the mob. It further appears that during the course of the investigation, a photo test identification parade was conducted in accordance with law wherein victims No.1 and 2 identified the accused/petitioner as one of the members of the mob involved in the naked parading, sexual and physical assault of the victims, and murder of the father and brother of one of the victims. It further appears that the accused/petitioner has shared the alleged video clip of the assault and naked parading of the victims on social media platforms. It further appears that during investigation it revealed that the cause of death of the two deceased was homicidal in nature, and the death of one of the deceased was due to laceration of the brain associated with fracture and dislocation of the skull bone caused by hard and blunt force to the body, and the death of the other deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage. It further appears from the material on record that the accused/petitioner, along with other co-accused, was part of the mob at the spot and played an active role in the incident involving sexual assault/gang rape, naked parading of women victims, and murder of two relatives of one woman victim. ...............................
...............................
27. I cannot be unmindful of the seriousness of the nature of the allegations against the accused/petitioner in the case at hand, the severity of punishment at case of conviction against the alleged offence and also the fact that cognizance is yet to be Page No.# 7/18 taken by the trial Court. That apart, it appears that there are materials available on record indicating that the accused/petitioner was part of the mob at the spot and played an active role in the alleged incident. It further appears that one of the victims, whose father and brother are alleged to have been murdered by the members of the mob, has also identified the accused/petitioner to be one of the perpetrators. Thus, there is prima-facie material available on record indicating the involvement of the accused/petitioner in the offences alleged. I also cannot disregard the fact that the victims are yet to depose before the trial Court. Furthermore, the apprehension of the prosecution that there is every possibility of the accused/petitioner threatening and tampering with the victims and witnesses, if is released on bail can also not be disregarded by this Court in the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case.
28. There is no quarrel with the proposition that at the stage of granting bail, this Court is not punishing the accused. It is well settled that the grant or refusal of bail is the discretion of the Court and the same should be exercised judiciously. I am reminded of the age old principle propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632, that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. However, in the rarest of rare facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not hesitate for a moment to make an exception to the said rule.
30. Thus, keeping in mind, amongst other circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the offences, the prima-facie case against the accused/petitioner, the possibility of the accused/petitioner threatening and tampering with the victims and witnesses, and the larger interest of the public vis-a-viz Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am of the firm opinion that bail at this stage cannot be granted to the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail stands rejected."
8. It appears that since this court had rejected the first bail application, i.e., on 09.05.2025, charge till date has not been framed. Undoubtedly, rejection of a bail application on an earlier occasion does not stand as a bar for consideration of a subsequent bail application;
Page No.# 8/18 however the same can be considered on the basis of a material change in circumstances since the first application was denied, such as, amongst others, newly discovered evidence, a shift in charges, the release of co-accused, or significant delays in the trial. Keeping the above principles in mind, let me now examine whether there has been any material change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail as prayed for.
9. It appears that the prosecution sanction was passed by the Commissioner Home, Government of Manipur, on 05.03.2025, granting prosecution sanction under Section 153(A) of IPC in respect of the criminal case at hand. It further appears from the materials available on record that the accused/petitioner has been identified by the victims to have been present in the mob and involved in the naked parading, sexual and physical assault of the victims, and murder of the two deceased. It further appears that the victims have not specifically identified the role played by the accused/petitioner. It further appears that the accused/petitioner had received a video clip recorded by a co- accused of the incident which was forwarded to him by another co- accused, and subsequently, he shared the same with others.
10. Apt at this juncture to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the CBI opposing the prayer of bail which reads as under: -
"f. That, during investigation of local police, role of accused persons namely (i) Huirem Herodash Meitei (A - 1), (ii) Arun Khundongbam (A - 2) (iii) Ningombam Tomba Singh (A - 3) surfaced. Investigation of the case revealed that accused individuals played active roles in the incident involving the physical assault and naked parading of Page No.# 9/18 the victims and murder of 02 victims. These aforementioned individuals were arrested by the local police on July 20, 2023. g. That, during investigation of the Manipur Police directs involvement of Yumlembam Jiban Singh (A-4) in recording alleged video clip (that depicts the assault and parading of the victims) and sharing the same to other co-accused persons also surfaced. Subsequently, Yumlembam Jiban Singh (A - 4) was arrested by the Manipur Police on July 20, 2023.
h. That, during investigation of the Manipur Police, it has also surfaced that CCL Yumlembam Nungshithoi Meitei, received the aforementioned video clip from Yumlembam Jiban Singh (A - 4) and subsequently, he shared the video clip with Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei (A-5). It is also surfaced that, Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei (A-5) received the alleged video clip and proceeded to share it with accused petitioner Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6) and four other individuals. The accused petitioner Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6), received the video clip and subsequently, shared the video clip with others, resulting in the video's eventual viral spread on social media platforms. As a result of these actions, CCL Yumlembam Nungshithoi Meitei was apprehended by the Manipur Police on July 21, 2023. Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei (A-5) was arrested by the Manipur Police on July 22, 2023 and accused petitioner, Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6) was arrested by the Manipur Police on July 24, 2023.
...............
...............
k. That, during the course of investigation, statements of Victim-1 and Victim-2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 16.08.2023. Also, the statements of Victim-3 and one witness (husband of V-3) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 29.08.2023. The statements of all three victims and witness Mr. B. Joseph Vaiphei u/s 164 Cr.P.C have disclosed about the naked parading, physical & sexual assault and gang rape of Victim-1 & Victim-2, murder of father and brother of Victim-1 and physical assault of Victim-3 in their presence by the mob. l. That, during the course of investigation, Photo Test Identification Parade (Photo TIP) was conducted under the supervision of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churachandpur to identify the accused persons by Victim 1 and Victim 2. During Photo TIP, Victim-1, Page No.# 10/18 Victim-2 have identified accused petitioner Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6) along with other 06 co- accused persons as Huirem Herodash Meitei (A-1), Arun Khundongbam @ Nanao (A-2), NingombamTomba Singh @ Tomthin (A-3), Yumlembam Jiban Singh (A - 4) Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei (A - 5) and Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) Yumlembam Nungshithoi Meitei @ Thoi. m. That, during investigation, Photo TIP was also conducted at New Delhi on 27.09.2023 before the Investigating Officer for identification of the accused persons by Victim 3. Victim -3 has identified accused Arun Khundongbam (A - 2) along with other accused/suspected persons.
n. That, during investigation of the case dead body of father and brother of victim-1 were identified by the witnesses. Investigation revealed that, cause of death of brother of victim-1 is homicidal in nature and the death was due to laceration of brain associated with facture dislocation of skull bone caused by hard and blunt force to the body. Investigation of the case further revealed that cause of death of father of victim-1 is homicidal in nature and the death was due to shock and hemorrhage.
o. That, investigation of the case established that all accused persons along with accused petitioner Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6) were part of the mob at the spot and played active role in the incident involving the sexual assault/ gang rape, naked parading of the victims and murder of father and brother of one victim."
11. It further appears that, the trial court on 25.04.2025 took cognizance under Sections 120(B)/147/148/149/153A/ 302/354/354- B/34/376(2)(g) and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)d, 3(1)e, 3(1)g, 3(1)w(i), 3(1)z & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the accused persons, including the accused/petitioner. It further appears that on 09.05.2025, on the date on which the first bail application of the petitioner was rejected, after the cognizance of the case and registration as a special case, the same having been listed Page No.# 11/18 before the trial court, the matter was fixed, inter alia, for charge hearing. It further appears that thereafter, on several occasions, the matter was listed before the trial court; however, no hearing on the charge could commence. It further appears that since co-accused No.1 could not engage a lawyer, the matter was delayed on that count also. It further appears that pursuant to the trial court's order on 14.08.2025, finally a legal aid counsel was provided to him by the Registrar General of the High Court of Manipur. It is not understood as to why the CBI prosecutors did not earlier request the trial court to provide legal aid counsel to the said co-accused. It is also not understood as to why the CBI prosecutors are not making serious efforts to expedite the charge hearing.
12. This court also finds that on the last occasion, i.e., 28.08.2025, before the trial court, due to the non-appearance of the CBI prosecutor, the hearing on charge could not commence. Apt to reproduce the order dated 28.08.2025, passed by the trial court, which read as under: -
"28.08.2025 All the 06 accused persons namely, Mr. Huirem Herodas Meitei (A-1), Mr. Arun Khundongbam (A-2), Мг. Ningombam Tomba (A-3), Mr. Yumlembam Jiban Singh (A-4). Mr. Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei (A-5) and Mr. Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6) have been produced through V/C who are currently lodged at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, Imphal East. The accused persons be remanded to judicial custody again till next date. Accused Arun Khundongbam (A-2) and Ningombam Tomba (A-3) are represented by learned Counsel Mr. Raj Shekhar. Accused Mr. Yumlembam Jiban Singh (A-4) and Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei (A-5) are represented by his learned counsel Mr. Page No.# 12/18 Victor Khaba.
Accused Mr. Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6) is represented by his learned counsel Mr. Junu Rahman.
Accused Huirem Herodas Meitei (A-1) is represented by LADC Thoubal Ms T.Satyakamala Devi and prays for supplying the copies u/s 230 BNSS. Since, the learned counsel has appeared from Manipur, so CBI shall furnish soft copy, so that the learned counsel can get print out at Manipur.
It appears that Id P.P., CBI has not entered appearance which hinders further progress in the case. Let this fact be intimated to HOB, SCB, Kolkata for doing the needful at the earliest. Fix 11.09.2025 for production supply of copy to A-1 and charge hearing, if any."
13. It is thus evident from the above extracted order of the trial court that due to the non-appearance of the CBI prosecutor, the further progress in the hearing of charge has been hindered.
14. On careful consideration of the aforesaid and perusal of the record, this court finds that the accused/petitioner has undergone more than 2 years, 1 month, 15 days of pretrial detention. It appears that the trial has since been transferred to the State of Assam by order dated 25.08.2023 of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary No.19206/2023, thereby reducing the risk of local influence or intimidation of victims and witnesses. It is worthwhile to note that, considering the seriousness of the crime, this court had earlier rejected the prayer for regular bail. However, this court cannot be unmindful of the fact that since the rejection of the bail application filed earlier by the accused/petitioner, i.e., on 09.05.2025, the charges have not been framed till date. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, recognized in Hussainara Page No.# 13/18 Khatoon (supra). The Apex Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731, directed that undertrials facing long incarceration must be considered for bail to prevent violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
15. Similarly, in Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 616, the Apex Court held that even in cases involving grave allegations under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, prolonged custody without commencement of trial warranted release on bail with strict conditions.
16. The Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), after referring to a number of previous decisions, including K. A. Najeeb (supra) has held as under: -
"9. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. ..................
..................
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution."
Page No.# 14/18
17. Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari (supra), wherein the Apex Court, after analyzing the precedent, including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), and a few others, has held as under: -
"22. It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude.
.......................
.......................
31. In Gurwinder Singh (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the respondent, a two Judge Bench of this Court distinguished K.A. Najeeb (supra) holding that the appellant in K.A. Najeeb (supra) was in custody for five years and that the trial of the appellant in that case was severed from the other co-accused whose trial had concluded whereupon they were sentenced to imprisonment of eight years; but in Gurwinder Singh, the trial was already underway and that twenty two witnesses including the protected witnesses have been examined. It was in that context, the two Judge Bench of this Court in Gurwinder Singh observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution Page No.# 15/18 of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.
33. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. We are, therefore, inclined to grant bail to the appellant."
18. A perusal of the final charge-sheet as furnished to the court by Ms. M. Kumari, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI, indicates that there are a total number of 30 witnesses. It is further apparent that the charges have not yet been framed by the trial court. It is also observed that due to the non-appearance of the CBI prosecutor on the last occasion, the matter could not progress. Hence, this court is of the unhesitant view that continued incarceration without commencement of trial after more than two years constitutes a material change of circumstances, warranting reconsideration of bail, notwithstanding the earlier rejection, which was based primarily on the gravity of the offence.
19. While the accusations here are grave and shocking, this court cannot overlook that indefinite detention without trial amounts to pretrial punishment, which is impermissible in law. This Court is conscious that there can be no straitjacket formula or universal standard for determining what period of custody amounts to Page No.# 16/18 "prolonged incarceration." The assessment has to be contextual, depending upon the nature of the offence, the stage of trial, the conduct of the prosecution, and the period already undergone by the accused.
20. In the present case, custody of more than two years without even the framing of charges, largely on account of prosecutorial lapses, clearly falls within the category of unjustified prolonged incarceration, thereby constituting a material change of circumstances since the rejection of the earlier bail application.
21. In the peculiar facts of the case, including the non- commencement of the trial since the earlier bail rejection amounting to uncertainty of the conclusion of the trial at an earlier date and considering that the accused/petitioner has suffered over 2 years of pretrial custody, this court holds that the accused/petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in the instant second bail application, subject of course, to stringent conditions, ensuring protection of victims and witnesses.
22. Consequently, the accused/petitioner Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei, be released on bail in connection with the above-mentioned case, on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh) along with 2 (two) suitable sureties of like amount, out of which 1 (one) surety shall be a resident of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Assam, Guwahati (trial court), subject to the following stringent conditions: -
Page No.# 17/18
(i) Since the trial stands transferred to the State of Assam the accused/petitioner shall reside at his permanent address in District-
Thoubal, Manipur, and shall not enter the district/place where the victims and their families presently reside.
(ii) The accused/petitioner shall mark attendance once every fortnight before the O/C of the police station within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall keep his mobile number active, sharing location details with the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(iii) The accused/petitioner shall surrender his passport (if any) forthwith before the trial court and shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court. If he does not hold a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court. The trial court may ascertain the correct position from the passport authorities, if it deems it necessary.
(iv) The accused/petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact, influence, or intimidate any victim, witness or their family members.
(v) The accused/petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court and shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the case. In addition, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner shall also co-operate in the early disposal of the case.
(vi) The concerned I.O. of the SIT in connection with this case is Page No.# 18/18 directed to keep a close watch on the accused/petitioner's movement and compliance with bail conditions and to submit monthly compliance reports to the trial court.
(vii) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek immediate cancellation of bail.
23. It is made clear that the present order granting bail is passed in the context of the peculiarity of the individual facts and circumstances of the accused/petitioner herein, particularly the prolonged pretrial custody and delay in commencement of trial vis-à-vis the role implicated against the accused/petitioner in the alleged offence. This order shall not be treated as a precedent or binding for consideration of bail of any other co-accused whose application shall be decided independently on their own merit.
24. The trial court is directed to take all steps to frame charges and commence trial at the earliest, and the CBI shall ensure regular appearance of its prosecuting counsel so that proceedings are not hampered.
25. Ordered accordingly.
26. The bail application accordingly, stands allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant