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. 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 away after release on bail. In fact, he is in jail from 23.3.2017, i.e., more than 5 years and 7 months. 9. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments like chest pain, breathing difficulty, uncontrolled hypertension, palpitation, sleeplessness with crying spells and generalized weakness and severe stress also present. In fact, he is in jail from 23.3.2017, i.e., more than 5 years and 7 months. 9. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments like chest pain, breathing difficulty, uncontrolled hypertension, palpitation, sleeplessness with crying spells and generalized weakness and severe stress also present. In fact, the petitioner has been referred to JNIMS Hospital many times, but his symptoms have not been relieved and that his condition in the jail is worsening and in order to take a better treatment outside the jail, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The learned counsel submitted that the case is now part-heard and 12 prosecution witnesses were examined so far and the trial is not likely to be taken up for further hearing in near future and the trial is delayed for one reason or the other and that the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded so far, amount to contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case and that on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the evidence proposed to be led by the prosecution, there is absence of reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 11. On the other hand, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the grounds raised for releasing the petitioner are all baseless, misconceived and unsustainable. The charge levelled against the petitioner is under Section 302 IPC, a heinous offence and, as such, the petitioner should not be allowed to be released on bail, inasmuch as, the likelihood of the petitioner unduly influencing the witnesses, threatening the witnesses, absconding or fleeing cannot be ruled out till the completion of the trial. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that when the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.47 of 2019, the learned Sessions Judge, by the order dated 29.7.2019, rightly dismissed the petition. The trial is pending where the prosecution will prove the charges against the petitioner and he would have opportunity to rebut the evidences produced by the prosecution. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the petition. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials on record. 14. The trial is pending where the prosecution will prove the charges against the petitioner and he would have opportunity to rebut the evidences produced by the prosecution. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the petition. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials on record. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing on record the medical records, particularly the medical report of the Medical Officer, MCJ, Sajiwa addressed to the Jail Superintendent, submitted that in the said medical report, it has been stated that the health condition of the petitioner is deteriorating gradually and better for him to get treatment from a well-equipped health Institute outside the jail. 15. Further, the petitioner also sought bail stating that he is in jail from 23.3.2017 and though so far 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the trial is delayed and detaining him in jail to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Moreover, the personal liberty is deprived when bail is refused. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge without considering the submission of the petitioner. 16. Since the prosecution raised maintainability of the present petition on the ground of non-impleadment of the State as well as the jail authority as party respondents in this petition, this Court is inclined to first deal with the said issue. 17. The specific argument of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution is now carried forward by the State and the petitioner has only arrayed the Officer-in-Charge of Heinang Police Station as respondent, while the State of Manipur has not been impleaded as party respondent. Further, the jail authority also ought not to have been made as party respondent in this bail application. 18. The aforesaid submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cannot be countenanced for the reason that there is no hard and fast rule that when the prosecution case carried forward by the State and pending trial when the accused filed bail application, the State should be impleaded as party respondent in the bail application for consideration of bail to the accused person. Similarly, there is no hard and fast rule that when the accused in jail files bail application pending trial, he ought to have made the jailor as respondent in the bail application. Similarly, there is no hard and fast rule that when the accused in jail files bail application pending trial, he ought to have made the jailor as respondent in the bail application. In fact, in support of the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he has not produced any materials. Therefore, this Court is of the view that by adding the Officer-in-Charge of the police station alone as respondent, the present petition filed by the petitioner for bail is very well maintainable. In fact, the Officer-in-Charge of Heingang Police Station mentioned as respondent in the bail application itself treated as State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Heingang Police Station. 19. Coming to the merits of the bail application, the petitioner has been arrested and detained for the alleged allegation of killing one Sapam Ranjit @ Amuba Singh and the petitoner is in jail from 23.3.2017. It is admitted by both sides that now the stage of the Sessions Case is for examination of further prosecution side witnesses and so far 12 witnesses have been examined. Since the case is part-heard and 12 witnesses have already been examined, the question of hamper or tamper of any prosecution evidence or terrorize the witnesses after the petitioner is released on bail does not arise. 20. Though the medical records of the petitioner relate to the year of 2019, the case of the petitioner that he is suffering from chest comfort, chest pain, unable to sleep at night, palpitation and generalized weakness etc. cannot be brushed aside. The opinion of the Medical Officer of MCJ, Sajiwa is to the effect that it will be better for the petitioner to get treatment from a well-equipped health Institute outside the jail. 21. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that while dismissing the bail petition of the petitioner in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.47 of 2019, dated 29.7.2019, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the treatment of hypertension is a long process treatment by medication, diet and exercise and no immediate surgical operation or otherwise is required and hence, the said ailments of the petitioner can be treated very easily inside the jail. The aforesaid observation of the learned Sessions Judge is unacceptable and, in fact, the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the petitioner can be treated very easily inside the jail. The aforesaid observation of the learned Sessions Judge is unacceptable and, in fact, the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the petitioner can be treated very easily inside the jail. When the medical report of the Medical Officer, who is a Doctor and expert in medical field suggests that it is better for the petitioner to get treatment from a well equipped health Institute outside the jail, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have ignored the report of the Medical Officer, who treated the petitioner and given a report. 22. According to the prosecution, on investigation, the respondent police arrested the petitioner in connection with the case and charge sheet has also been filed against him for the commission of offence. Further, trial has begun and so far 12 prosecution witnesses were examined and at this stage, releasing of the petitioner on bail will definitely protract the trial, as the petitioner will not co-operate for speedy trial. Further, this is a case of murder and therefore, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail. 23. The very involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence is disputed by the petitioner. The aforesaid aspect will be proved only during trial. Though the factual aspects are not required to be considered in the bail application, for the purpose of considering the bail application in the light of the complaint, this Court has referred the same. The aforesaid conclusion drawn by this Court is not conclusive, but only prima facie view. 24. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested on 23.3.2017 and he is in custody for more than five years. The petitioner is also complaining that his health is not in good condition and he is suffering hypertension, palpitation, sleeplessness, sleeplessness with crying spells and generazied weakness and severe stress etc. and he wants to take treatment outside the jail. 25. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the charge levelled against the petitioner is under Section 302 IPC a heinous offence and, as such, should not be allowed to be released on bail, inasmuch as, the likelihood of the petitioner unduly influencing the witnesses, threatening the witnesses, absconding or fleeing cannot be ruled out till the completion of the trial. Nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show that the incident of the petitioner approaching the prosecution side witnesses and threatened them to give evidence in his favour. Nothing has also been produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Khundrakpam Mayai Leikai, P.O. Pangei and P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District. Therefore, the plea of the prosecution that if the petitioner released on bail, he will flee and trial will be protracted cannot be countenanced. 26. As stated supra, originally, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the FIR has been registered suo motu by the Inspector of Police against unknown persons and only after registration of the FIR and on interrogation, the respondent police implicated the petitioner and other accused into the crime. At this stage, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed the crime alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner also pleaded innocence. 27. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since charge sheet has already been filed, the interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and the petitioner's presence in judicial custody may not be necessary. He would also submit that the dignity of the accused person should be maintained and grant of bail is the rule and refusal is exception and that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. This Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 28. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be penalized merely because he was arrayed as an accused and the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the petitioner for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioner is against the constitutional right and liberty. 29. It is to be mentioned that it is the Court which has the last say on whether there exists any reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of committing the offence. 29. It is to be mentioned that it is the Court which has the last say on whether there exists any reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of committing the offence. Furthermore, there is no blanket bar as such which is imposed on the Court on granting of bail in such case and that the Court can exercise discretion in releasing the accused as long as reasons are recorded which clearly disclose how the discretion has been exercised. 30. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2020) SCC OnLine 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that despite the alleged offence being grade and serious, and there being several criminal cases pending against the accused, these factors by themselves cannot be the basis for the refusal of the prayer for bail. 31. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 32. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once it was made obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and that the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 33. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioner is in jail from 23.3.2017 i.e. almost more than five years and 7 months. 33. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioner is in jail from 23.3.2017 i.e. almost more than five years and 7 months. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that by the order dated 29.9.2017 in Cril. P. Case No.121 of 2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East released the accused on bail. Pursuant to the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, accused Soram Sanjoy Singh and Th. Tombinou Devi have furnished surety bonds and they have been released on bail. Since the petitioner failed to furnish necessary surety as ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he was not released on bail and is in custody from 23.3.2017. 34. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: '7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)' 35. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and noted that no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. 36. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: '12. 36. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: '12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant of rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter of trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.' 37. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. 38. There is no quarrel over the proposition that where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 39. As stated supra, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and, thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police to complete the trial, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail application. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police to complete the trial, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail application. This Court, in the earlier paragraphs of this order, only discussed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be proved during trial and, that apart, the petitioner was not a named accused in the FIR. 40. In a catena of decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as 'reasonable, just, fair' so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 41. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception'. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 42. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled for speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied bail. 43. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner is in custody from 23.3.2017. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled for speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied bail. 43. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner is in custody from 23.3.2017. The primary purposes of ball in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of detaining him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 44. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: '21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.' 45. As stated supra, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 46. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.' 47. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 48. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 49. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. 50. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 51. 50. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 51. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient bonds and he is also ready to co-operate with the trial and also he will abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while order bail. 52. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time and that the veracity of the allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial. That apart, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice and also considering incarceration of the petitioner from 23.3.2017, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 53. Accordingly, Bail Application No.3 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the Special Trial Case No.1 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East with reference to FIR No.56(3) 2017 of Heingang Police Station, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the trial Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of his residence and the complete address of his place shall be furnished to the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East at the time of release. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East weekly once i.e. every Monday at 10.30 a.m., apart from all hearing dates. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East weekly once i.e. every Monday at 10.30 a.m., apart from all hearing dates. (iii) If the petitioner has passport, he shall also surrender the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East. (iv) The petitioner shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses. (v) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vi) The petitioner is directed to co-operate the trial court by putting his personal appearance for disposal of the case expeditiously. (vii) It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (viii) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail application. (ix) The trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as early as possible.