Manipur High Court

Akoijam Roshan Singh vs The Officer-In-Charge on 17 October, 2022

    SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL              Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
                                       SUSHIL SHARMA
    SHARMA                             Date: 2022.10.17 16:28:10 +05'30'
                                                                            Page |1



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                      AT IMPHAL

                                 Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022

                  Akoijam Roshan Singh, aged about 28 years, S/o
                  Akoijam Manglem Singh of Khundrakpam Mayai
                  Leikai, P.O. Pangei & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East
                  District, Manipur now at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.

                                                        ... Petitioner/ Accused

                                        -Versus -

                  The Officer-in-Charge, Heingang Police Station,
                  Imphal East District, P.O.&P.S. Heingang, Imphal East
                  District, Manipur.
                                                                  ...Respondent

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners :: Mr. Th. Jugindro, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, Addl. PP

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 03.08.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 17.10.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on

bail in connection with Special Trial Case No.1 of 2018 on the

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |2

file of learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East with reference to

FIR No.56(3)2017 under Section 302/34 IPC on the file of

Heingang Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the

reliable information that one unidentified male dead body

having blood injury was found lying at near Heingang Awang

Leikai Leikha Lampak suspected to be killed in the intervening

night of 21.3.2017 and 22.3.217, the then Inspector of Police,

Heingang Police Station suo motu registered an FIR

No.56(3)2017 under Section 302/34 IPC against unknown

persons.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that since the

investigation reveals the involvement of the petitioner and two

others, they have been arrayed as accused and charge sheet

has also been filed against them and the jurisdictional

Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and after

committal, the case is now pending before the learned Sessions

Judge, Imphal East, wherein almost 11 prosecution side

witnesses have been examined and the case is now part-heard.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |3

4. According to the petitioner, he is in jail from

23.3.2017 and though so far 12 witnesses have been examined

on the side of the prosecution, for one reason or the other, the

trial is dragging. According to the petitioner, he is suffering from

various ailments like chest pain, breathing difficulty and

uncontrolled hypertension etc. and he could not get better

treatment inside the jail. Therefore, in order to get proper

treatment for his ailments, he prayed for releasing him on bail

and he will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court.

5. Opposing the petition, the respondent police filed

affidavit stating that the present petition is not maintainable for

non-impleadment of the State as one of the respondents, as the

prosecution is now carried forward by the State inasmuch as

Special Trial Case No.1 of 2018 is pending before the learned

Sessions Judge, Imphal East. Since investigation completed,

charge sheet has been filed and trial has already commenced,

the petition in its present form is not maintainable, misleading

and abuse of process of Court. It is stated that the jail authority

ought to have been made as party in the present petition, who

is much better to place on record to answer the allegations

made in the present petition.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |4

6. It is stated that when the petitioner approached the

learned Sessions Judge for granting him bail on medical

ground, by the order dated 29.7.2019, the bail petition was

dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. As per the medical

report and the status report of the petitioner submitted by the

Medical Officer, MCJ, Sajiwas, no threat on the life of the

petitioner. Since the trial is undergoing and present petition is

only for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 439

Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the issue as to whether the

evidence recorded by the prosecution in this case show prima

facie involvement of the petitioner in the crime charged against

him.

7. Mr. Th. Jugindro, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has

nothing to do with the alleged offence in connection with

Sessions Trial Case No.1 of 2018 and that he sincerely co-

operated the investigating officer before submitting charge

sheet . He would submit that earlier the petitioner has filed Cril.

Misc. (B) Case No.47 of 2019 before the learned Sessions

Judge for bail, however, by the order dated 29.7.2019, the

learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |5

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner has clean antecedents and no previous criminal

record in his life except the present allegation. Moreover, there

was no useful purpose by the authority to serve for detaining

the petitioner in jail and that there is no likelihood that the

petitioner will be absconding away after release on bail. In fact,

he is in jail from 23.3.2017, i.e., more than 5 years and 7

months.

9. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner is

suffering from various ailments like chest pain, breathing

difficulty, uncontrolled hypertension, palpitation, sleeplessness

with crying spells and generalized weakness and severe stress

also present. In fact, the petitioner has been referred to JNIMS

Hospital many times, but his symptoms have not been relieved

and that his condition in the jail is worsening and in order to take

a better treatment outside the jail, he deserves to be enlarged

on bail.

10. The learned counsel submitted that the case is

now part-heard and 12 prosecution witnesses were examined

so far and the trial is not likely to be taken up for further hearing

in near future and the trial is delayed for one reason or the other

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |6

and that the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded so

far, amount to contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution

case and that on the basis of the evidence led by the

prosecution and the evidence proposed to be led by the

prosecution, there is absence of reasonable grounds for

believing that the petitioner has committed the offence. Thus,

a prayer is made to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

11. On the other hand, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the grounds raised

for releasing the petitioner are all baseless, misconceived and

unsustainable. The charge levelled against the petitioner is

under Section 302 IPC, a heinous offence and, as such, the

petitioner should not be allowed to be released on bail,

inasmuch as, the likelihood of the petitioner unduly influencing

the witnesses, threatening the witnesses, absconding or fleeing

cannot be ruled out till the completion of the trial.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

submitted that when the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case

No.47 of 2019, the learned Sessions Judge, by the order dated

29.7.2019, rightly dismissed the petition. The trial is pending

where the prosecution will prove the charges against the

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |7

petitioner and he would have opportunity to rebut the evidences

produced by the prosecution. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss

the petition.

13. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials on record.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing

on record the medical records, particularly the medical report of

the Medical Officer, MCJ, Sajiwa addressed to the Jail

Superintendent, submitted that in the said medical report, it has

been stated that the health condition of the petitioner is

deteriorating gradually and better for him to get treatment from

a well-equipped health Institute outside the jail.

15. Further, the petitioner also sought bail stating that

he is in jail from 23.3.2017 and though so far 12 prosecution

witnesses have been examined, the trial is delayed and

detaining him in jail to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the

Constitution is violated. Moreover, the personal liberty is

deprived when bail is refused. The bail application of the

petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge without

considering the submission of the petitioner.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |8

16. Since the prosecution raised maintainability of the

present petition on the ground of non-impleadment of the State

as well as the jail authority as party respondents in this petition,

this Court is inclined to first deal with the said issue.

17. The specific argument of learned Additional Public

Prosecutor is that the prosecution is now carried forward by the

State and the petitioner has only arrayed the Officer-in-Charge

of Heinang Police Station as respondent, while the State of

Manipur has not been impleaded as party respondent. Further,

the jail authority also ought not to have been made as party

respondent in this bail application.

18. The aforesaid submission of the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor cannot be countenanced for the

reason that there is no hard and fast rule that when the

prosecution case carried forward by the State and pending trial

when the accused filed bail application, the State should be

impleaded as party respondent in the bail application for

consideration of bail to the accused person. Similarly, there is

no hard and fast rule that when the accused in jail files bail

application pending trial, he ought to have made the jailor as

respondent in the bail application. In fact, in support of the

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 Page |9

contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he has

not produced any materials. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that by adding the Officer-in-Charge of the police station alone

as respondent, the present petition filed by the petitioner for bail

is very well maintainable. In fact, the Officer-in-Charge of

Heingang Police Station mentioned as respondent in the bail

application itself treated as State, represented by the Inspector

of Police, Heingang Police Station.

19. Coming to the merits of the bail application, the

petitioner has been arrested and detained for the alleged

allegation of killing one Sapam Ranjit @ Amuba Singh and the

petitoner is in jail from 23.3.2017. It is admitted by both sides

that now the stage of the Sessions Case is for examination of

further prosecution side witnesses and so far 12 witnesses have

been examined. Since the case is part-heard and 12 witnesses

have already been examined, the question of hamper or tamper

of any prosecution evidence or terrorize the witnesses after the

petitioner is released on bail does not arise.

20. Though the medical records of the petitioner relate

to the year of 2019, the case of the petitioner that he is suffering

from chest comfort, chest pain, unable to sleep at night,

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 10

palpitation and generalized weakness etc. cannot be brushed

aside. The opinion of the Medical Officer of MCJ, Sajiwa is to

the effect that it will be better for the petitioner to get treatment

from a well-equipped health Institute outside the jail.

21. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that while

dismissing the bail petition of the petitioner in Cril. Misc. (B)

Case No.47 of 2019, dated 29.7.2019, the learned Sessions

Judge observed that the treatment of hypertension is a long

process treatment by medication, diet and exercise and no

immediate surgical operation or otherwise is required and

hence, the said ailments of the petitioner can be treated very

easily inside the jail. The aforesaid observation of the learned

Sessions Judge is unacceptable and, in fact, the learned

Sessions Judge erred in holding that the petitioner can be

treated very easily inside the jail. When the medical report of

the Medical Officer, who is a Doctor and expert in medical field

suggests that it is better for the petitioner to get treatment from

a well equipped health Institute outside the jail, the learned

Sessions Judge ought not to have ignored the report of the

Medical Officer, who treated the petitioner and given a report.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 11

22. According to the prosecution, on investigation, the

respondent police arrested the petitioner in connection with the

case and charge sheet has also been filed against him for the

commission of offence. Further, trial has begun and so far 12

prosecution witnesses were examined and at this stage,

releasing of the petitioner on bail will definitely protract the trial,

as the petitioner will not co-operate for speedy trial. Further,

this is a case of murder and therefore, the petitioner cannot be

enlarged on bail.

23. The very involvement of the petitioner in the

commission of the alleged offence is disputed by the petitioner.

The aforesaid aspect will be proved only during trial. Though

the factual aspects are not required to be considered in the bail

application, for the purpose of considering the bail application

in the light of the complaint, this Court has referred the same.

The aforesaid conclusion drawn by this Court is not conclusive,

but only prima facie view.

24. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested on

23.3.2017 and he is in custody for more than five years. The

petitioner is also complaining that his health is not in good

condition and he is suffering hypertension, palpitation,

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 12

sleeplessness, sleeplessness with crying spells and generazied

weakness and severe stress etc. and he wants to take

treatment outside the jail.

25. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been

stated that the charge levelled against the petitioner is under

Section 302 IPC a heinous offence and, as such, should not be

allowed to be released on bail, inasmuch as, the likelihood of

the petitioner unduly influencing the witnesses, threatening the

witnesses, absconding or fleeing cannot be ruled out till the

completion of the trial. Nothing has been produced by the

prosecution to show that the incident of the petitioner

approaching the prosecution side witnesses and threatened

them to give evidence in his favour. Nothing has also been

produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner is not a

permanent resident of Khundrakpam Mayai Leikai, P.O. Pangei

and P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District. Therefore, the plea of

the prosecution that if the petitioner released on bail, he will flee

and trial will be protracted cannot be countenanced.

26. As stated supra, originally, the petitioner was not

named in the FIR and the FIR has been registered suo motu by

the Inspector of Police against unknown persons and only after

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 13

registration of the FIR and on interrogation, the respondent

police implicated the petitioner and other accused into the

crime. At this stage, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that

the petitioner has committed the crime alleged by the

prosecution. The petitioner also pleaded innocence.

27. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that since charge sheet has already been filed, the

interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and the

petitioner's presence in judicial custody may not be necessary.

He would also submit that the dignity of the accused person

should be maintained and grant of bail is the rule and refusal is

exception and that the fundamental postulate of criminal

jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning

thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. This Court finds some force in the submission made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner.

28. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be

penalized merely because he was arrayed as an accused and

the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant

lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain

the petitioner for long and also without any evidence, the

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 14

detention of the petitioner is against the constitutional right and

liberty.

29. It is to be mentioned that it is the Court which has

the last say on whether there exists any reasonable grounds for

believing that the accused is guilty of committing the offence.

Furthermore, there is no blanket bar as such which is imposed

on the Court on granting of bail in such case and that the Court

can exercise discretion in releasing the accused as long as

reasons are recorded which clearly disclose how the discretion

has been exercised.

30. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2020) SCC

OnLine 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that despite the

alleged offence being grade and serious, and there being

several criminal cases pending against the accused, these

factors by themselves cannot be the basis for the refusal of the

prayer for bail.

31. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 15

consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."

32. In Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb, Criminal

Appeal No.98 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that once it was made obvious that a timely trial would not be

possible and that the accused has suffered incarceration for a

significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated

to enlarge them on bail.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 16

33. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioner

is in jail from 23.3.2017 i.e. almost more than five years and 7

months. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that by the order

dated 29.9.2017 in Cril. P. Case No.121 of 2017, the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East released the accused on

bail. Pursuant to the order of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, accused Soram Sanjoy Singh and Th. Tombinou

Devi have furnished surety bonds and they have been released

on bail. Since the petitioner failed to furnish necessary surety

as ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he was not

released on bail and is in custody from 23.3.2017.

34. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan,

(2009) 2 SCC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

"7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 17

police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)"

35. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

emphasized the importance of the principle of personal liberty

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and noted

that no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts

unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter.

36. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 18

and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant of rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter of trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail."

37. It is well settled that while considering an

application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This

requirement stems from the desirability that no party should

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 19

have the impression that his case has been pre-judged.

Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered.

Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not

required.

38. There is no quarrel over the proposition that where

the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has

to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the

offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the

larger interest of the public.

39. As stated supra, the allegations levelled against

the petitioner are to be proved by way of oral and documentary

evidence and, thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the

merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the

ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police to

complete the trial, this Court has noted the merits in order to

consider the bail application. This Court, in the earlier

paragraphs of this order, only discussed that the allegations

levelled against the petitioner are to be proved during trial and,

that apart, the petitioner was not a named accused in the FIR.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 20

40. In a catena of decision, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that a procedure which keeps large number of

people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded

as "reasonable, just, fair" so as to be in conformity with the

provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining

the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a

gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

41. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to

be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that

the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence.

There must be some prima facie evidence on record or

reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the

benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse

his liberty or he would create conditions which are not

conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

various judgments has confirmed that "bail is the rule and jail is

an exception". The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventive but is meant to secure presence of the accused

during the trial.

42. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail

custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 21

India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled

for speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious

allegations are levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner

cannot be denied bail.

43. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner is in

custody from 23.3.2017. The primary purposes of ball in a

criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to

relieve the State of the burden of detaining him, pending the

trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively

in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction,

to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and

be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.

44. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1

SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 22

stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

45. As stated supra, this Court as well as the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is

an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail

is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

46. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay,

(1977) 4 SCC 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 23

avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight."

47. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail

have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.

Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Kalyan

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 24

Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a

judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the

stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be

undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons

for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted,

particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed

a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would

suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the

Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances and

the following facts also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 25

48. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal

jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning

thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a

reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to

some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not

detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other

offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal

jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and

putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is

an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles

appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and

more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods.

This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to

our society.

49. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is

entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail

application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has

been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 26

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the

country.

50. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to

be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application.

Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane

treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an

accused is requirement of law.

51. During the course of arguments, the learned

counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to

furnish sufficient bonds and he is also ready to co-operate with

the trial and also he will abide by any terms and conditions that

may be imposed by this Court while order bail.

52. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

without commenting on the merits of the matter, this Court is of

the opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to languish

behind bars for a longer period of time and that the veracity of

the allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial.

That apart, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that

he will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to

tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 27

and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice and also

considering incarceration of the petitioner from 23.3.2017, this

Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged

on bail.

53. Accordingly, Bail Application No.3 of 2022 is

allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

connection with the Special Trial Case No.1 of 2018 on the file

of the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East with reference to

FIR No.56(3) 2017 of Heingang Police Station, subject to the

petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-

with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of

the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East with the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not leave the place

of his residence without permission of

the trial Court and shall ordinarily reside

at a place of his residence and the

complete address of his place shall be

furnished to the learned Sessions

Judge, Imphal East at the time of

release.

Bail Appln. No. 3 of 2022 P a g e | 28

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the

learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East

weekly once i.e. every Monday at 10.30

a.m., apart from all hearing dates.

(iii) If the petitioner has passport, he shall

also surrender the same to the learned

Sessions Judge, Imphal East.

(iv) The petitioner shall not contact nor visit

nor threaten nor offer any inducement to

any of the prosecution witnesses.

(v) The petitioner shall not tamper with