KHOIROM IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN
BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
AT IMPHAL
Date: 2024.09.26
DRA SINGH
16:18:55 +05'30'
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2024
Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei, aged about 29 years, S/o
Nameirakpam Samu Meitei of Nungbrang Mayai
Leikai, PO & PS Andro, Thoubal District, Manipur.
…. Petitioner
- Versus -
The Central Bureau of Investigation represented by
the Investigating Officer (IO) of the CBI Case No. RC
05620230012/CBI/ SCB/Kolkata Ref: FIR No. 110(06)
2023 NSK-PS u/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/ 448/ 302/
354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34 UIPC & 25(1-C)A, Act, added
u/s 376-D IPC & Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(g),
3(1)(w(i)), 3(1)(z), 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v) of
SC&ST (PoA), Act, 1989 and its corresponding ZERO
(91)(5) 2023 SKL-PS U/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/ 448/
302/ 354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34 IPC & 25(1-C)A, Act,
Central Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Head of
Branch, CBI, ACB Imphal Branch, Near D.C. Office,
West District Imphal, Post Office Lamphelpat,
–
Imphal - 795004
…. Respondent
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
For the petitioner : Mr. Juno Rahman, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. W. Darakishwor, Senior PCCG
Date of hearing : 16.08.2024
Date of order : 26.09.2024
P a g e 1 | 16
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned senior PCCG appearing
for the respondent at length.
[2] The present Bail Application has been filed under section
428 and Section 437 read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 praying inter-alia to release the petitioner on bail
pending trial of the above referred CBI Case No. RC
0562023S00012/CBI/SCB/Kolkata U/s 120B, 147, 148,149, 153A, 302,
354, 354-B, 34, 376(2)(g) and 376-D IPC, Section 3(1)d, 3(1)e, 3(1)g,
3(1)w(i), 3(2)v of SC & ST (PoA), Act, 1989 with the following prayer;
(ii) to release the humble Petitioner on bail in connection
“
with FIR No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS u/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/
448/ 302/ 354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34 IPC & 25(1-C)A, Act, added
u/s 376-D IPC & Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(w(i)),
3(1)(z), 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v) of SC&ST (PoA), Act, 1989
in the facts and circumstances of the present Bail Application.
(iii) to pass any order/ direction as th
e Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present Bail
Application
”
[3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a peace loving person who is earning his livelihood by
driving earth excavator (JCB) thereby feeding the hungry mouth of his
elderly parents, wife and 3 (three) children including a minor daughter.
P a g e 2 | 16
He further submits that the petitioner is residing at a village which is
near a kuki village and is at great peril in consideration with the present
scenario. In the second week of May, 2023 one Suranjoy, a friend of
the petitioner had shared a video to the petitioner of an incident which
has become viral recently of crime committed against 2 (two) kuki
women. On 24th July, 2023, the petitioner was called by the
Superintendent of Police, Thoubal for some consultation and discussion,
however upon reaching the office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thoubal, the petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.
110(06)2023 NSK PS U/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/ 448/ 302/ 354/ 364/
326/ 376/ 34 IPC. Since then, the petitioner is in judicial custody. He
further submits that the petitioner has no connection nor committed
any of the crimes/offences as mentioned in the above referred FIR but
the only fault of the petitioner is that he had received the video from
one Suranjoy however he has neither shown nor shared the said video
to any other individual(s).
[4] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur issued Notification
No. 12/1(4)/2023-H(CBI) dated 26th July, 2023 whereby in pursuant of
the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946, consent was given to the extension of powers and
jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in
the whole of the State of Manipur for carrying out investigation of FIR
P a g e 3 | 16
No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS u/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/ 448/ 302/ 354/
364/ 326/ 376/ 34 IPC & 25(1 - C)A. Act, added u/s 376D-IPC &
Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e) 3(1)(g) 3(1)(w(i)) 3(1)(z) 3(2)(iii) 3(2)(iv)
3(2)(v) of SC&ST (PoA), Act, 1989 and its corresponding ZERO
(91)(5)2023 SKL-PS U/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/ 448/ 302/ 354/ 364/
326/ 376/ 34 IPC & 25(1-C) A. Act. And the Under Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of
India, New Delhi also issued Notification No. 228/47/2023-AVD-II dated
28th July, 2023 thereby extending the powers and jurisdiction of the
members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole state of
Manipur for investigation of FIR No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS u/s 153A/
398/ 427/ 436/ 448/302/ 354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34 IPC & 25(1-C)A. Act,
added u/s 376-D IPC & Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(w(i)),
3(1)(z), 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v) of SC&ST (PoA), Act, 1989 and its
corresponding ZERO (91)(5)2023 SKL-PS U/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/
448/ 302/ 354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34 IPC & 25(1-C) A. Act and any
attempt, abetment and/ or conspiracy in relation to or in connection
with such offence(s) and/ or for any other offence committed in the
course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[5] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the above referred
FIR and is not involved in any criminal activities till date. He further
P a g e 4 | 16
submits that the petitioner had filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 271 of
2023 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Thoubal for granting bail in
connection with the above referred FIR however, the same was
transferred to the Court of Special Judge (SC&ST) PoA, Thoubal and
the bail application of the petitioner was heard along with the other
individuals who were arrested in connection with the said incident of
parading naked of 2(two) ladies being FIR No. ZERO (91)(5)2023 SKL-
PS U/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/ 448/ 302/ 354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34 IPC &
25(1-C) A. Act. He further submits that even though the petitioner has
not been booked/ charged under any of the provision of Schedule Cast
and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court of
Special Judge (SC&ST) PoA, Thoubal heard the bail application of the
booked/
petitioner’s along with other bail application which were
charged under the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
[6] Accordingly to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
I/O for the CBI had concealed the whole fact that the petitioner was
not booked/ charge under the SC&ST (PoA), Act, 1989 and submitted
their
“Petition for further extension of Judicial Custody of the accused
on 31.08.2023 for all the persons arrested under
persons for 15 days”
FIR No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS who were booked/ charged under the
SC&ST Act, even though the petitioner has been arrested under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code only and not under the SC&ST Act,
Arms Act and IT Act. He further submits that during the relevant period
P a g e 5 | 16
of time, internet including mobile as well as broadband was suspended
in the state of Manipur and thus, the alleged allegation of the I/O of
CBI that the petitioner had shared the said video in social media is
totally baseless, concocted and has no legs to stand.
[7] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
on 04.09.2023 after hearing both the parties, the Court of Special
Judge (SC&ST) PoA, Thoubal passed the impugned Common order
thereby dismissing the bail application of the petitioner on the ground
that all the accused including the petitioner has a possibility of
absconding from the jurisdiction of the court. He further contended that
while passing the impugned order, the Special Judge (SC&ST) PoA,
Thoubal treated the petitioner as if he was involved in the said crime
and dismissed/rejected the bail application and he further submits that
in the bail objection report dated 31.08.2023 of the I/O of the CBI
nowhere is there any allegation that the petitioner was involved in the
said crime nor was he even present at the scene of crime.
[8] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments have held
that although bail is an exception of serious offences, but it is also true
that a person cannot be detained where there is no evidence
connecting him with the crime or if the circumstances are such which
raise a doubt of his involvement in the crime. Nowhere in the report
dated 31.08.2023 of the I.O. of CBI is there any statement that the
P a g e 6 | 16
petitioner was involved in the said offence and that the only allegation
against the petitioner is that he had received the video of the said
crime over his mobile phone.
[9] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the alleged allegation of presence of accused in the above referred FIR
at the spot during the relevant period of time as mentioned in the
Report of I/O of CBI dated 31-08-2023 is quite vague and cannot be
treated as a ground for denying bail to the humble petitioner as the
alleged allegation is based on the analysis of the CDRs and Tower
Dump. He further submits that the crime scene is at a distance of about
5-6 kms from the residence of the humble petitioner and thus it is quite
likely that both the locations are covered by the same Mobile Tower
and thus the analysis of CDRs and Tower Dump only indicates that the
humble petitioner was at a location covered by the mobile network
tower of the crime scene and thus not necessarily mean that the
petitioner was present at the spot of the crime. He further submits that
the grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court,
however right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the
sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purpose
of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to
relieve the state of the burden of keeping 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
P a g e 7 | 16
to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever
his presence is required.
[10] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that time
and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the foremost view that
where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined
investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency
and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation
should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is
attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not
only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire
community. Also submitted that the name of the petitioner does not
appear in the FIR No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS u/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/
448/ 302/ 354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34 IPC & 25(1-C)A. Act, added u/s 376-
D IPC & Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(w(i)), 3(1)(z), 3(2)(iii),
3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v) of SC&ST (POA), Act, 1989.
[11] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner had already approached the Court of Special Judge, CBI,
Kamrup for granting bail in connection with CBI Case No. RC
0562023500012/ CBI/SCB/Kolkata U/s 120B, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 302,
354, 354-B, 34, 376(2)(g) and 376-D IPC, Section 3(1)d, 3(1)e, 3(1)g,
3(1)w(i) & 3(2)v of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 however the same was
rejected vide order dated 04-01-2024. The relevant portion of the order
dated 04-01-2024 reads as under:
P a g e 8 | 16
heet shows that the investigation
“A perusal of the charge s
has revealed that the accused applicant along with A-3, A-4
and A-5 were identified by the victims as they were in the mob
and involved in the naked parading and sexual and physical
assault of the victims and the murder of S. Vaiphei and N.
Vaiphei.
I have perused the CD and the having regards to the
incriminating materials and the heinous nature of the alleged
offences, as well as the current volatile situation obtaining in
the state of Manipur and the public impact, the prayer for bail
stands rejected at this stage. Instant Misc. Case stands
disposed of. Return back the CD.”
He further submits that the Learned CBI Court, Kamrup has
failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had filed a bail
application and the trial of the case is yet to commence however, the
Learned CBI Court, Kamrup have a premeditated mind that the
petitioner is guilty of the offence even before commencement of trial.
Also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of
judgments have held that an accused is to be treated as innocent until
proven guilty.
[12] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
CBI in their reply affidavit filed before the Learned CBI Court, Kamrup
have stated at sub-para 6 of para 21 that further investigation of the
case is in progress to ascertain the role of the other accused persons in
the commission of the heinous crime of rape of 02 victims... He further
submits that when the Charge-sheet has already been filed, the
question of further investigation does not arise at all. However, the CBI
has stated that further investigation is required even after filing of
charge sheet in the present case. The only reason for rejecting the bail
P a g e 9 | 16
application filed by the petitioner before the Learned Court of CBI,
Kamrup as provided by the CBI is that there is every possibility of
tampering with evidence and influencing the witness, if the accused is
enlarged on bail. Here, he further mentioned that the only piece of
evidence against the petitioner is his mobile phone which has already
been seized by the police since day one. Further, the victims are
located at a secured location which is known only to the CBI and thus
the question of tampering the evidence and influencing the witness
does not arise at all. Furthermore, the Learned CBI Court, Kamrup is
fixed on the question as to how the petitioner had received the video
from one Suranjoy. He further mentioned that receiving the video was
not the issue in the present case but the further forwarding of the
videos in the internet and other social media websites.
[13] Learned Sr. PCCG submitted affidavit in opposition on
behalf of the respondent narrating the prosecution story that the case
was registered on the basis of a written complaint of Mr. Thangboi
Vaiphei, Chief of Village-B Phainom against unknown miscreants
alleging physical assault & gang-rape of women victims, murder of
father and brother of one of the women victim and other offences took
place on 04.05.2023. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, on
18.05.2023, FIR bearing No. ZERO (91)(5)2023 was registered at
Saikul-PS U/s 153A/ 398/ 427/ 436/ 448/ 302/ 354/ 364/ 326/ 376/ 34
IPC & 25(1-C) Arms Act, thereafter, the case was transferred to
P a g e 10 | 16
Nongpok Sekmai PS, Thoubal District, Manipur and re-registered as FIR
No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS dated 21.06.2023. The investigation of local
police surfaced active roles of accused persons namely (i) Huirem
Herodash Meitei, (ii) Arun Khundongbam, (iii) Ningombam Tomba
Singh and they were taken into police remand till 31.07.2023.
[14] Learned Sr. PCCG further submitted that the investigation
of the case revealed that Yumlembam Jiban Singh was directly involved
in the incident and he has recorded the alleged video clip that depicts
the assault and parading of the victims. Subsequently, he shared the
video clip with CCL Yumlembam Nungshithoi Meitei & others, which
ultimately led to its widespread dissemination on social media.
Yumlembam Jiban Singh was arrested by the Local Police on July 20,
2023 and taken into police remand till 31.07.2023. It also surfaced that
CCL Yumlembam Nungshithoi Meitei, who received the aforementioned
video clip from Yumlembam Jiban Singh. Following this, CCL shared the
video clip with Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei. As a result of these
actions, CCL was apprehended by the Thoubal Police on July 21, 2023.
Subsequently, CCL was presented before the Principal Magistrate of the
Juvenile Justice Board in Thoubal and was subsequently transferred to
Nirmal Foundation in Kairong. Imphal East for safe custody. It is also
surfaced that Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei received the alleged
video clip from CCL Yumlembam Nungshithoi Meitei, proceeded to
share it with Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei and four other individuals.
P a g e 11 | 16
Consequently, this sharing of the video led to its widespread
dissemination on social media platforms. Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy
Meitei was arrested by the Thoubal Police on July 22, 2023 and taken
into police remand till 01.08.2023. The accused Nameirakpam Kiran
Meitei, received the video clip from Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei.
Subsequently, Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei shared the video clip with
others, resulting in the video’s eventual viral spread on social media
platforms. Based on these findings, Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei was
arrested by the Manipur police on July 24, 2023 and he was taken into
police remand till 01.08.2023 and produced before the Ld. Court on
01.08.2023, and the Court extended the judicial custody of accused
persons including Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei from time to time. Since
then the accused/petitioner is in Judicial custody.
[15] Learned Sr. PCCG further submitted that on 04.09.2023
the Ld. Court of Special Judge (SC & ST, PoA), Thoubal rejected the
bail petition of the accused including Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei.
Thereafter, on 13.09.2023 in the light of order dated 25.08.2023 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
no. 19206/2023 and to subsequent notification dated 31.08.2023 of the
Hon’ble High Court, Guwahati, the Ld. Court of Special Judge (SC & ST,
PoA), Thoubal transmitted the Original Case record to the Ld. Special
Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam (District & Session Judge, Kamrup (Metro),
Guwahati, Assam. Thereafter, the arrested accused were produced
P a g e 12 | 16
before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam and the Ld. Court vide
order dated 14.09.2023 further extended the Judicial Custody of
accused persons including Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei and fixed on
26.09.2023.The arrested accused/CCL including Nameirakpam Kiran
Meitei were produced before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam
on 26.09.2023 and the Ld. Court further extended the Judicial Custody
of accused persons including Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei and fixed on
10.10.2023. On 16.10.2023, CBI filed chargesheet against the accused
petitioner along with other Co-accused.
[16] Learned Sr. PCCG further submitted that on the basis of
available evidence, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons
namely Huirem Herodash Meitei (A-1), Arun Kungongbam (A-2),
Ningombam Tomba Singh (A-3) Yumlembam Jiban Singh (A-4),
Pukhrihongbam Suronjoy Meitei (A-5) Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei (A-6)
and final report against CCL u/s 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 302, 354,
354-B, 34, 376(2)(g) and 376-D IPC r/w Section 3(1)d, 3(1)e, 3(1)g,
3(1)w(i) & 3(2)v of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
substantive offences thereof keeping further investigation open u/s 173
(8) Cr.P.C. He further submits that, the Bail application filed by the
petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur is lacking in
jurisdiction and not maintainable in the light of the order dated
25.08.202
3 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave
P a g e 13 | 16
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 19206/2023 and subsequent notification dated
31.08.2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati.
[17] Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
following judgment;
(i) Tahir Hussain Vs State - [High Court of Delhi]
(a) Bail Appln. No. 3551/2020
(b) Bail Appln. No. 2437/2021
(c) Bail Appln. No. 2440/2021
(d) Bail Appln. No. 2752/2021
(e) Bail Appln. No. 2807/2021
(ii) Misc Case (CBI) No. 8/2024 (arising out of FIR No.
RC0562023S0012, CBI, SCB, Kolkata) [Special
–
Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati]
[18]
After the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated
25.08.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.
19206/2023 and subsequent notification dated 31.08.2023 of the
ble High Court, Guwahati and al the connected case records from
Hon’
the file of the Ld. Spl. Judge, SC/ST, (PoA), Thoubal to the Ld. CBI and
NIA, Assam, (District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup) (Metro, Guwahati,
Assam. Thereafter, the arrested accused persons were produced
before the Ld. Court and the custody of the present petition with other
accused were extended from time to time. Further, it is admitted
position of the fact that the petitioner filed/approached the Court of
P a g e 14 | 16
Spl. Judge, CBI, Kamrup for granting bail with CBI Case No. RC
0562023500012/ CBI/SCB/Kolkata U/s 120B, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 302,
354, 354-B, 34, 376(2)(g) and 376-D IPC, Section 3(1)d, 3(1)e, 3(1)g,
3(1)w(i) & 3(2)v of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. However, the same was
rejected vide order dated 04-01-2024.
Further, it is also admitted position of fact that charge
sheet was already filed in connection with the case against the present
accused/petitioner with other co-accused and the same is pending
before the Court of Spl. Judge, CBI, Kamrup for trial. The coordinate
Bench of this High Court vide order dated 22.12.2023 passed Bail
Appln. No. 27 of 2023 wherein, the present accused/petitioner is one of
the petitioner, in para No. 10 and 11 of the order observed the
following:
This Court has considered the submissions made with
“[10]
regard to the maintainability of the bail application and has
perused the materials on record. It is clear from the order
dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
further proceedings of 27 cases (including the present case)
would be conducted at Guwahati due to the prevailing
situations in Manipur. Courts have been identified in Guwahati
for the said purpose. The limited jurisdiction of recording
statements under Section 164 CrPC and conducting TIPs in
Manipur is aimed at facilitating the investigation and the same
cannot be stretched conferring parallel jurisdiction in Manipur
even after transfer. Now, the chargesheet has been filed by the
CBI before the Special Court at Guwahati.
P a g e 15 | 16
[11] In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that it may no longer be proper to entertain these bail
applications, even though the impugned common order dated
04.09.2023 was passed by a Court within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. Without expressing any opinion on the
merit of the case the bail applications are disposed of with a
liberty to the accused persons to approach competent courts at
Guwahati, if so advised. No cost.”
[19] In view of the admitted position of the facts and
circumstances as discussed above and taking into consideration the
observation made herein above by the coordinate Single Bench of this
High Court, I am of the considered view that this Court lacks
jurisdiction to deal with the case. Without going into the merit of the
case, the present application is dismissed as lack of jurisdiction.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lucy/Bipin
P a g e 16 | 16