IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Thokchom Jitendro Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Anr. - Respondents
Bail Appln. No. 20 of 2022
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 304/34 IPC, 364-A/390/109 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, filed a bail application stating that he was falsely implicated in a case involving the death of a person in his custody. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner beat the deceased and committed custodial torture and atrocity. The petitioner claimed that the deceased died due to consuming poison and not due to assault by him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie evidence to establish that the petitioner tortured or physically assaulted the deceased. The court also noted the slow progress of the investigation and the petitioner's impeccable image and lack of past criminal records. The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was involved in the death of the deceased and if there was sufficient evidence to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the presumption of innocence, the slow progress of the investigation, and the petitioner's lack of criminal records in granting bail. The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and that the accused should not be detained unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will tamper with evidence or obstruct justice.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, considering the lack of prima facie evidence and the slow progress of the investigation.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in connection with FIR No.106(5)2022 under Section 304/34 IPC read with Section 364-A/390/109 IPC on the file of Imphal Police Station.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.5.2022 at 1.30 a.m., one Arambam Kombirel Devi reported that on 2.5.2022 at about 9.30 a.m., her son Arambam Nanao Singh was abducted by 3/4 unknown persons in civil dress, who came in a car from the road nearby their house located at Sagoiband Kangabam Leikai. One of the said team identified himself as SI Jitendro (petitioner) who came in a white Activa, asked to come to Imphal Police Station. After half an hour, the police team in civil dress also picked up Nanao's Swift car which was parked at the road side. Later, she arrived at Imphal Police Station at around 10.30 a.m. of the same day. After a long wait, she happened to meet SI Jitendro at 1.30 p.m. After meeting with him, he warned that unless Rs.5 lakh is paid till 4.00 p.m. of the same day, he will not be relieved. She was made to sign on a piece of paper stating that her son has been arrested in a case and served her a copy. While managing to settle the matter, the police team brought her son Arambam Nanao Singh at her resident at 4.00 p.m. and the said police team brought him in his room. At that time, no family members were allowed entry in the room by the police team. Having heard to save her life, while attempted to enter his room by his younger brother Arambam Manju Singh, he was pushed back by his neck. After that, Nanao's grandmother, Arambam (O) Memcha Devi @ Leibakleima was also pushed back very hard. After a while, Nanao was taken out of his room in an unconscious state. Later, he was evacuated to RIMS Hospital by two police personnel (one in uniform and one in civil dress) along with her son Manju and Sanabam Nilakanta Singh in a fourt-wheeler car of Nilakanta. However, he expired at RIMS Hospital despite medical treatment. Based on the complaint, the Imphal Police registered a case in FIR No.106(5)2022 under Section 304/34 IPC against the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that neither the FIR nor the investigation discloses any ingredients to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is a simple police officer coming from a reputed family and has an impeccable and untarnished image and no past criminal records in his name. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has not done any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he filed the present petition for bail.
4. Opposing the bail application, the respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner picked up the deceased Nanao and he kept the deceased in his custody. While the deceased was in his custody, he alone beat up the deceased, thereby committed custodial torture and atrocity on the deceased. In the evening of 2.5.2022, the petitioner brought the deceased at the house of the deceased and other security personnel simply accompanied him on his instruction. At the house of the deceased, only the petitioner committed brutality and atrocity towards the deceased and his family. The investigation so far thus reveals the misuse of power, abuse of power and atrocity committed by the petitioner against the deceased while the deceased was in his custody.
5. Mr. Gunedhor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the present case on his surrender and that as a Sub-Inspector of Police of Imphal Police Station, he made a preliminary enquiry based on a report made by one Kangabam Jacky alleging that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was one of his goldsmiths and he had misappropriated gold amounting to Rs.9.60 lakh meant for making gold necklace of 15 tolas and that the deceased Arambam Nanao Singh was arrested in connection with GD.No.30/IPS/2022 dated 1.5.2022.
6. The learned counsel further submitted t
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
Bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and the accused should not be detained unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will tamper with evidence or obstruct justice.
The delay in concluding the trial, the presumption of innocence, and the lack of prima facie evidence were central to the court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail depends on various factors, including the nature of the offence, the presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane att....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, especially in cases where there is delay in concluding the trial and no conclusive evidence connect....
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
The main legal point established is that the presumption of innocence, the need for a speedy trial, and the balance between personal liberty and the investigational right of the police are crucial fa....
Bail granted in murder case due to hostile key witness rendering prima facie accusation doubtful, prolonged incarceration over four years amid delayed trial, no antecedents, upholding Article 21 pers....
The court ruled that the seriousness of charges and ongoing risk to witnesses outweigh the defendant's custody length and medical claims, justifying bail denial.
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.