IMPORTANT POINT
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 need to balance the personal liberty of the accused with the requirements of the society.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in connection with Special Trial Case No.1 of 2018 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East with reference to FIR No.56(3)2017 under Section 302/34 IPC on the file of Heingang Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the reliable information that one unidentified male dead body having blood injury was found lying at near Heingang Awang Leikai Leikha Lampak suspected to be killed in the intervening night of 21.3.2017 and 22.3.217, the then Inspector of Police, Heingang Police Station suo motu registered an FIR No.56(3)2017 under Section 302/34 IPC against unknown persons.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that since the investigation reveals the involvement of the petitioner and two others, they have been arrayed as accused and charge sheet has also been filed against them and the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and after committal, the case is now pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East, wherein almost 11 prosecution side witnesses have been examined and the case is now part-heard.

4. According to the petitioner, he is in jail from 23.3.2017 and though so far 12 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution, for one reason or the other, the trial is dragging. According to the petitioner, he is suffering from various ailments like chest pain, breathing difficulty and uncontrolled hypertension etc. and he could not get better treatment inside the jail. Therefore, in order to get proper treatment for his ailments, he prayed for releasing him on bail and he will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court.

5. Opposing the petition, the respondent police filed affidavit stating that the present petition is not maintainable for non-impleadment of the State as one of the respondents, as the prosecution is now carried forward by the State inasmuch as Special Trial Case No.1 of 2018 is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East. Since investigation completed, charge sheet has been filed and trial has already commenced, the petition in its present form is not maintainable, misleading and abuse of process of Court. It is stated that the jail authority ought to have been made as party in the present petition, who is much better to place on record to answer the allegations made in the present petition.

6. It is stated that when the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge for granting him bail on medical ground, by the order dated 29.7.2019, the bail petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. As per the medical report and the status report of the petitioner submitted by the Medical Officer, MCJ, Sajiwas, no threat on the life of the petitioner. Since the trial is undergoing and present petition is only for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the issue as to whether the evidence recorded by the prosecution in this case show prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the crime charged against him.

7. Mr. Th. Jugindro, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.1 of 2018 and that he sincerely cooperated the investigating officer before submitting charge sheet . He would submit that earlier the petitioner has filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.47 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Judge for bail, however, by the order dated 29.7.2019, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and no previous criminal record in his life except the present allegation. Moreover, there was no useful purpose by the authority to serve for detaining the petitioner in jail and that there is no likelihood that the petitioner will be absconding aw