Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Oinam Sanatomba Singh - Appellant
Versus
Officer-in-charge, Women Police Station - Respondent
Bail Appln. Nos. 7 & 8 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - Section 376(D)/34, Section 376(2)(g)/34, Section 376(2)(h)/34 IPC - The judgment discusses the bail applications filed by the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.17(3)2022 registered under Sections 376(D)/34, altered under Section 376(2)(g)/34, altered under Section 376(2)(h)/34 IPC. The court considered the allegations, the prosecution's case, and the arguments of both parties before granting bail to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that two unknown persons forcibly raped her, threatened her, and left her bound. The petitioners filed bail applications stating that they were falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners required trial for proof. It noted the slow progress in the investigation and the petitioners' custody since 17.3.2022. The court considered the delay in trial and the presumption of innocence. It granted bail to the petitioners with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the allegations, the progress of the investigation, and the presumption of innocence of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the need for speedy trial, and the balance between personal liberty and the investigational right of the police. It held that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and that the grant of bail should be considered judiciously.
Final Decision: Bail Application Nos.7 and 8 of 2022 were allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. These applications have been filed by the petitioners-accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with FIR No.17(3)2022 registered under Sections 376(D)/34, altered under Section 376(2)(g)/34, altered under Section 376(2)(h)/34 IPC on the file of the Women Police Station, Imphal West.
2. Since both the applications arise out of the same FIR, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2022 the complainant lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Women Police Station, Imphal West stating that on 8.3.2022 at around 3.30 p.m., while the complainant was living alone in her room, two unknown persons masked with clothes came inside her room and forcibly covered the complainants' mouth, tied her hands and legs by small shawl taken from the hanger and they forcibly raped her. After committing rape, the two persons threatened her by keeping a knife on the belly of the complainant saying not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise they will kill her. The complainant tried to shout, but she was overpowered by them. Later, the two persons left the complainant without releasing her from binding. She could not report the incident on time due to fear of threatening by the two persons. Thereafter, on 10.03.2022 the complainant went to the Women Police Station, Imphal West and lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, a case was registered under FIR No.17(3)2022 WPS-IW U/s.376(2)(g)/34 IPC. Later, the charge section has been corrected as Section 376(2)(h)/34 IPC.
4. The petitioners have filed bail applications stating that the respondent police registered the FIR on 10.03.2022 against two unknown persons without any basis on mere allegation that they visited the house of the victim in the morning and thereafter, they arrested them on 10.03.2022 and 11.3.2022 respectively. Further, the respondent police made up a false case that the victim identified the petitioners before filing of the report/original ejahar and also concocted some improbable story about raping the complainant by the petitioners. Hence, these bail applications.
5. The respondent police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on interrogation of the petitioners, they admitted that they came to the house of the victim in the morning on which date the incident happened. However, both the accused refused to admit that they raped the victim. The victim identified the petitioners who committed the crime. Only on identification, the petitioners were arrested in this case for investigation, however, the petitioners tried to mislead the investigation by giving inconsistent statements. Hence, prayed for dismissal of bail applications.
6. Mr. P. Tomcha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they are in no way connected with the alleged crime and in fact they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint and that the petitioners are not named in the complaint or FIR and in fact, no such incident took place on 8.3.2022.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that no incriminating materials had been seized from the petitioners at any relevant point of time and that the petitioners are married man having wife and children and they are the only bread winners to their families.
8. The learned counsel next submitted that the learned Sessions Jude ignored the importance of the allegation that the complainant identified the accused on 9.3.2022 when the report/original ejahar was filed against unidentified persons on 10.3.2022, which clearly shows that the complaint is false and fabricated one. He would submit that the learned Sessions Judge also ignored the fact that the alleged incident took place at around 3.30 p.m., while the alleged visiting of the petitioner at the house of the complainant was in the morning on the same day.
9. The learned counsel urg
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....
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 ....
Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.
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 presumption of innocence, the discretion of granting bail, and the need for a humane approach in bail decisions were central legal principles established in the judgment.
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....
The presumption of innocence, the humane treatment of accused individuals, and the balance between personal liberty and the security of the community are central legal principles established in the j....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
