IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei, S/o- Nameirakpam Samu Meitei - Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation, Represented by the Investigating Officer – Respondent
Bail Application No.1169 of 2025
Decided On : 09-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual background and procedural history of the arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding procedural compliance and bail entitlement. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. prima facie assessment of investigation findings and case records. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. constitutional compliance under article 22(1) does not mandate written grounds for pre-pankaj bansal arrests. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. grant of bail is discretionary, subject to overriding concerns of public interest and witness safety. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. formal dismissal of the bail application. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
ORDER :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. J. Rahman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI for the sole respondent.
2. This application is filed under Section 483 BNSS 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 CBI FIR No. RC0562023S0012/CBI/SCB/Kolkata, re-registered and re- numbered by the CBI by taking over the case from Nongpok Sekmai Police Station being FIR No. 110(06)2023 NSK-PS, registered under section- 153A/398/427/436/448/302/354/364/326/376/34 of the IPC, read with section 25(1-C) of Arms Act, added section 376-D of the IPC and Section 3(1)d, 3(1)e, 3(1)g, 3(1)(w(i)), 3(1)z, 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
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, 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 perso
Registrar General, High Court of Patna Vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Others
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shobharam and Others
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
Ram Kishore Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Procedural lapses in communicating grounds of arrest do not automatically render custody illegal unless they cause demonstrable prejudice, emphasizing compliance with Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Con....
(1) Arrest – Constitutional Safeguards – A police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged – The....
The court affirmed that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused, ensuring compliance with constitutional rights and enabling effective legal defense.
The court ruled that while informing the grounds of arrest is mandatory, recent Supreme Court interpretations regarding PMLA and UAPA do not apply to general offenses under IPC or KCOCA.
The court reaffirmed that informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional requirement, and non-compliance invalidates the arrest and remand.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.