Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010256922025 2025:GAU-AS:17729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3877/2025 SRI PUKHRIHONGBAM SURANJOY MEITEI S/O PUKHRIHONGBAM SURAMANGOLR/O YAIRIPOK, NONGBRAM NGAMUKHONG,P.S. ANDRO, DISTRICT IMPHAL EAST, MANIPURNOW INCARCERATED IN MANIPUR CENTRALJAIL, VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR DIRECTOR, PLOT NO. 5-B,6TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM MARG, NEW DELHI- 110003. 2:TH EINVESTIGATING OFFICER CBI SCB KOLKATA CAMP AT HOB CBI ACB LAMPHELPAT IMPHAL MANIPUR-795004 Advocate for the Petitioner : A K GOGOI, A GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 16.12.2025 Heard Mr A Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms M Page No.# 2/5 Kumari, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the CBI. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Pukhrihongbam Suranjoy Meitei, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.07.2023 (for more than 2 years) in connection with Special Case No. 07/2025 corresponding to CBI RC No. 0562023S0012/CBI/SCB/Kolkata, pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam, under Section 299 of the BNS, 2023,. 3. On 18.05.2023, one Hangboi Vaiphei, had 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, armed with sophisticated weapons 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 was further alleged in the FIR that five people (two males and three females) of the village who had fled to the nearby jungle were rescued by the police and were taken to police station. But on the way, a violent mob stopped them on the road and forcibly took them. 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 there is no specific accusation against the present petitioner in the FIR. He submits that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for more than two years and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace and charges have not been framed. 6. He further submits that two of the co-accused have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court mainly on the ground of prolonged incarceration. He has prayed for parity. 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 Page No.# 3/5 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) Nameirakpam Kiran Meitei –Vs- The Central Bureau of Investigation; in Bail Application No. 1798/2025; and ii) Moirangthem Anand Singh –Vs- National Investigating Agency, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 14616/2025 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 while granting bail to them, it was stipulated that the grant of bail to the co-accused should not be treated as a precedent for consideration of the bail of other co-accused. She further submits that the application for bail of the present petitioner is required to be considered on its own merits. She has also submits that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in the charge sheet, which clearly indicates to his complicity in the offence alleged in the FIR. 10. She further submits that the present petitioner was identified by the witness during test identification conducted by the Investigating Officer. She also submits that the victim girls have also implicated the present petitioner. She has also referred to the Final Report submitted in the case. 11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI has cited the following rulings in support of her submissions – i) Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; reported in AIR 2015 SC 3703; ii) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Another; reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42; Page No.# 4/5 iii) Sagar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8865 of 2025; iv) Hilal Ahmad Mir vs. Anti-Corruption Bureau & Others; in Bail Application No. 63 of 2020; v) State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan etc.; in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025; and vi) X –Versus- State of Rajasthan & Another; in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and gone through the charge sheet and other Trial Court Records. 13. The charge sheet reveals that 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. 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 prolonged incarceration may infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, the period that may be regarded as “prolonged incarceration” depends on facts and circumstances of each case as well as seriousness of offence involved in the said case. 14. The manner in which the victims were subjected to inhuman torture and also the fact that there was an attempt to kill them after committing rape on one of the woman does not inspire confidence of this Court to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner cannot be treated as long enough to give the benefit of prolonged incarceration to the petitioner. Page No.# 5/5 15. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant