While coming down heavily on prolonged detention of under trials, the Manipur High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Khongbantabam Hitler Singh Vs The Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station in Bail Appln. No. 30 of 2022 that was reserved on February 8, 2023 and then pronounced as recently as on February 14, 2023 granted bail to a person who was alleged to have committed murder of two women and an unborn child in 2017 and termed prolonged detention of under trials as violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice MV Muralidharan said in the order quite sagaciously that:
A humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the bail 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. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice MV Muralidharan of Manipur High Court at Imphal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in connection with FIR No.169(5)2017 under Section 302/449/120-B IPC on the file of Imphal Police Station, who is under trial prisoner in Sessions Trial (CAW) Case No.1 of 2018 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Crime Against Women, Manipur.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
The case of the prosecution is that on 30.5.2017 at about 5.40 p.m., the complainant Soram Tomba Singh lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Imphal Police Station that on the same day at about 4.45 p.m., when he returned home in his car he found the gate closed from inside and despite horn, neither his wife nor his daughter came out to open the main gate. Thereafter, he crossed the fencing wall by climbing on the car parked near the gate and opened the main gate.
Then, he parked the car inside the campus and when he tried to enter inside the house, he found both front doors were fastened with bolt from inside. So, he immediately moved towards the rear door on the northern side found it to be open. When he entered from the rear door, the complainant found his wife Soram (O) Lakhipyari Devi lying in a pool of blood on the floor.
When he proceed to the next room, he found his daughter Monica Soram, who was pregnant for 8 months, also found lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Then, he opened the front door, ran out of the house and shouted for help and he again went inside the house and checked their bodies. However, they were found dead with grievous injuries on their bodies.
Immediately, he rushed to the police station and lodged the complaint. Based on the written complaint, the Imphal police registered an FIR No.169(5)2017 under Section 302/449/120-B IPC against unknown person and investigated the case. During investigation, on 2.6.2017, the investigating officer arrested the petitioner in connection with the said FIR and sent him to judicial custody.
Do note, the Bench notes in para 14 that:
The tracking report of the case history regarding S.T. (CAW) No.1 of 2018 produced by the respondent clearly shows that the trial has started way back in the year 2018. Though most part of the period covers Covid-19, the materials on record would show that after lifting the lockdown and allowed the Courts to conduct the trial of the cases in the year 2021, no regular trial/day-to-day trial took place in the instant case. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has delayed the trial. On the other hand, the record reveals that due to failure of the prosecution in bringing the witnesses, the trial stands adjourned from time to time.
Needless to say, the Bench then points out in para 16 that:
It is settled law that the grant or refuse to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioner seeks bail mainly on the ground of delay in the trial, which started way back in the year 2018 itself. The pandemic started during March, 2020 and in between 2018 and March 2020, no sufficient progress had been taken to conclude the trial.
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench mentions in para 17 that:
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 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.
Quite ostensibly, the Bench underscores in para 10 stating that:
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.
Quite forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 19 observing that:
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.
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench states in para 20 that, In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
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 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.
There can be no gainsaying that the Bench then mentions in para 21 that:
As stated supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this 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 an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Most laudably, the Bench then holds in para 22 that:
The way in which the trial is conducted in the case on hand clearly shows that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Therefore, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, keeping the petitioner in custody indefinitely till the completion of trial would cause great hardship to him and also hits personal liberty. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time.
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then while citing a recent and relevant case law minces no words to state in para 24 that:
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.
No doubt, the Bench rightly states in para 25 that:
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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country.
Briefly stated, the Bench enunciates in para 26 that:
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.
While espousing bail for petitioner, the Bench states in para 27 that:
The cardinal principles of law for granting bail will not be affected when enlarging the petitioner on bail, inasmuch as the investigation has already been completed. As stated supra, the case is pending for examination of further prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the question of influencing to the witnesses or hamper and tamper of the prosecution case by the petitioner after his release does not arise.
Quite pertinently, the Bench while citing a recent and relevant case law observes in para 28 that:
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.
Most rationally and most significantly, the Bench holds in para 29 that:
Though the allegation against the petitioner is very serious in nature and he is alleged to have committed murder of two women and an unborn child in the womb, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is in jail since 2.6.2017 and also the trial of the case has not concluded yet for one reason or the other, in the interest of justice and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he shall remain present in person before the trial Court on the date fixed for the examination of the last prosecution witness as well as till the stage of examination of him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and its final order, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail in the given facts and circumstances of the case, however, subject to certain conditions.
Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 30 that:
Accordingly, Bail Application 30 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the FIR No.169(5)2017 under Section 302/449/120-B IPC on the file of Imphal Police Station, who is an under trial prisoner in Sessions Trial (CAW) Case No.1 of 2018 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Crime Against Women, Manipur, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Crime Against Women, Manipur with the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without the permission of the trial Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of his residence and the complete address of such place shall be furnished to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Crime Against Women, Manipur at the time of release.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Crime Against Women, Manipur weekly once i.e. every Monday at 10.30 a.m., apart from all hearing dates.
- If the petitioner has passport, he shall also surrender the same to the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Crime Against Women, Manipur.
- The petitioner shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant and his family members.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter.
- The petitioner is directed to co-operate the trial Court for speedy disposal of the case.
- It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of bail.
- Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail applications.
- The Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Crime Against Women, Manipur is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of Sessions Trial (CAW) Case No.1 of 2018 as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Crime Against Women, Manipur for speedy disposal of Sessions Trial (CAW) Case No.1 of 2018 and report before this Court.
In conclusion, the Manipur High Court has most commendably accorded the paramount importance to the personal liberty of an undertrial prisoner. It has also very rightly granted bail to the petitioner. It has also rightly pointed out that prolonged detention of the undertrials is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which is concerned with right to life and personal liberty and there can certainly be no compromise on it. It merits no reiteration that all the courts must act similarly in similar such cases and be liberal in granting bail in cases where prisoner is undertrial for a long span of time! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
