Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010191802025 2025:GAU-AS:13298 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2834/2025 NINGOMBAM TOMBA SINGH ALIAS TOMTHIN S/O BIREN SINGH R/O VILL- PECHI AWANG LEIKAI, P.O. YAIRIPOK, P.S. YAIRIPOK, IN THE DIST. THOUBAL, MANIPUR, PIN-795149. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP. BY THE RETAINER COUNSEL. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SEKHAR, A KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 24.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Sekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Page No.# 2/6 for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Ningombam Tomba Singh @ Tomthin, who has been detained behind the bars since 20.07.2023 (for more than 2 years) in connection with Special Case No. 07/2025 corresponding to PS Case No. CBI Case No. RC05062023S0012 under Section 299 of the BNS, 2023,. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 18.05.2023, one Hangboi Vaiphei, have lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Saikel P.S, inter alia, alleging that on 04.05.2023 at about 3 PM, around 900-1000 people, mostly belonging to various Meitei Organizations armed with sophisticated weapons forcibly entered into the village of the informant and vandalized and burnt down all the houses and looted all the valuables, leaving them homeless. 4. It is further alleged in the FIR that five people (two males and three females) of the village fled to the nearby jungle were rescued by the police and were taken to police station. But while they were being taken to police station, a violent mob stopped them on the road and forcibly took them and the two male persons were killed by the mob and the three females were stripped naked in front of the mob and one of the victims was even gang raped. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Page No.# 3/6 no specific accusation against the present petitioner in the FIR. However, she further submits that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than last two years and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace as till date even the copies of documents submitted by the prosecution side along with the charge- sheet have not yet been furnished to the petitioner. 6. He further submits that two of the co-accused has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court mainly on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial and as he has been languishing behind the bars, which has resulted in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he may be allowed to go on bail. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has cited the following citations – i) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.2787/2024, ii) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2790/2024, iii) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC Page No.# 4/6 51, iv) Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 31 v) Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 9. On the other hand, Ms. M. Kumari, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that though the coordinate Bench has allowed the two of the co-accused on bail. However, while granting bail to them, it has also observed that the grant of bail to the co- accused should not be treated as a precedent or binding or consideration of the bail of other co-accused. 10. She further submits that the application for bail of the present petitioner should be considered on its own merits. She has also submits that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in the case diary which clearly indicates to his complicity in the offence alleged in the FIR. 11. She further submits that the present petitioner was identified by the witness during test identification conducted by the I.O. She also submits that the victim girls have also implicated the present petitioner. She has also produced the case of the aforesaid case in support of her submissions. Page No.# 5/6 12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI has cited the following rulings in support of her submissions – i) X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378/2024, ii) Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 43, iii) Sabir Ali Vs. State of UP, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42021/2024 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and gone through the case diary. 14. On perusal of the scanned copy of the case diary, it appears that in this case, the accusation made by the victim girls are extremely serious in nature. They were paraded naked by the mob of which the petitioner was a part and later on one of the victim were gang raped also. 15. It also appears that during Test Identification Parade (TIP), the victim girls also identified few accused persons including the present petitioner. Though it is a fact that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than 2 years and it is also settled proposition that prolonged incarceration infringes the fundamental right of a person guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, as to what period may be regarded as prolonged incarceration depends on facts and Page No.# 6/6 circumstances of each case as well as seriousness of offence involved in the said case. 16. The manner in which the victim were subject to inhuman torture by parading them naked and also there was an attempt to kill them after committing rape on one of the woman would shake the conscience any prudent person. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner may not be regarded as long enough to give the benefit of prolonged incarceration to the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant