Manipur High Court Grant Bail To Man Accused Of Murdering Two Women, Unborn Child; Says Prolonged Detention Of Under-Trials Violation Of Article 21

"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," Acting Chief Justice M.V Muralidaran said in the order. 

The court also observed that the important facet of 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," it added, while relying on Supreme Court's observations in Dataram Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

The Imphal police had registered an FIR under Section 302/449/120-B IPC in 2017 on the complaint made by Soram Tomba Singh whose wife and pregnant daughter were killed inside his house. During investigation, the accused Khongbantabam Hitler Singh was arrested.  The complainant's daughter was eight-months pregnant at the time of alleged murder.

The counsel representing the accused told the court that the main reason for suspicion of the police is that accused "once had love affairs" with the victim before her marriage and her mother was against the relationship and hence he had been looking for an opportunity to eliminate "his lover and her mother".

It was argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case as he was arrested by the police on 2.6.2017 after calling him and detaining at Imphal Police Station in the name of suspicion. The counsel further submitted that the trial Court had framed charges against the petitioner on 28.3.2018 and still the case is pending for examination of prosecution side witnesses.

"Though so far 10-11 prosecution side witnesses were examined, still the prosecution has to examine 12-13 more witnesses which will take long years and the prosecution is not co-operating with the trial Court for speedy disposal of the case," it was submitted.

The court was told that there is no possibility of concluding the trial in near future and the accused has been in judicial custody for more than 5 years. Detaining the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period is deprived of his fundamental rights provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, his counsel argued. 

The prosecution counsel submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Crime Against Women, Manipur, in the order dated 28.3.2018 had come to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence or suspicion against the accused person for committing murder and causing death of unborn child amounting to culpable homicide.

Acting Chief Justice Muralidharan said the trial has started way back in 2018 and it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused 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," the bench noted.

The court also said that merits of the crime cannot be gone into even though the case involved double murder of two women and unborn baby in the womb. 

Observing that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering the bail application and the same is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case, the court said the petitioner has sought 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," it added. 

The court noted that the way in which the trial is being conducted in the case clearly shows that it is not likely to be concluded in near future and agreed with the argument that 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," said the court, adding that the Supreme Court has 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.

Observing that though the allegation against the petitioner is of very serious nature, the court noted that 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," it said, while allowing the bail application.

Case Title: Khongbantabam Hitler Singh Vs The Officer-in-Charge, Imphal Police Station.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Man) 4

Click Here To Read/Download Order