JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge him on bail in connection with FIR No.66(05)2022 under Section 302 IPC on the file of Churachandpur Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.5.2022, the Officer-in-Charge of Churachandpur Police Station received a written complaint from Thanglawr of Muonlhlum, Rengkai Village, Churachandpur stating that on 20.12.2021 at around 7.00 a.m., his son Vanramlal was assaulted by the petitioner and four unknown associates at a culvert in Edenthar, Rengkai near the residence of the petitioner at District Hospital, Churachandpur. However, his son was declared brought dead by the concerned Medical Officer on duty. Further, without performing any police formalities, the petitioner engaged one ambulance and dropped the dead body of his son at his residence. He has been threatened by the petitioner not to make any complaint to the police. The petitioner being S/s Defence Secretary of Hmar Peoples Convention (D), GHQ (HPC), he did not made any report to the police and conducted the funeral at Rengkai Cemetery on the date. Hence, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Officer-in-Charge of the Churachandpur Police Station registered an FIR bearing No.66(05)2022 under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Serto T. Kom, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present FIR has been registered based on hearsay received by the complainant against the petitioner, wherein the complainant himself stated that he was informed by his wife who was called upon by one Willam Hrangate through phone that their son and his friend were beaten by the petitioner at a culvert in Edenthar without any proof. He would submit that there is no material to prove the allegation against the petitioner and that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint was made after a long delay of the alleged incident of the death of the complainant's son, which the petitioner believed to be based on some pressure made upon the complainant by some persons to see that the petitioner be in the police custody as well as in judicial custody for a long time as the alleged offence being heinous crime. The said pressure is believed to be made by the powerful supporters of certain politicians against whom the petitioner had worked during the election of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election held on 5.3.2022. The petitioner being social worker and active in politics has been made as victim and it is a post-election rivalry. 5. The learned counsel next submitted that the allegations made in the complaint being concocted and that the petitioner is never a member of the organization called Hmar Peoples Convention (Democratic). The learned counsel submitted that there is no any material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, nor is there any witness to prove the allegations against the petitioner and that there is no prima facie case is made out. He submits that earlier, the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.12 of 2022 before the learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Churachandpur and by the order dated 11.7.2022, the learned Special Judge dismissed the petition on vague grounds and the same required to be set aside and that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the case put forth by the petitioner in proper perspective. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that after registration of the FIR and upon obtaining proper order from the concerned Magistrate, exhumation of the body of the deceased was conducted at the grave yard Rengkai Cemetery and required formalities were conducted at the place in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and witnesses. He would submit that the investigation of the case is still underway and search is on for the other accused who are still at large. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner herein is creating a fear psychosis in the minds of the general public of Churachandpur by carrying out various prejudicial activities. The instant FIR along with several FIRs which the petitioner was charged upon are a glaring example of some of his notorious brutal and illegal activities which are carried out by himself and his accomplices. In fact, the petitioner is a history-sheeter and no one is able to raise a voice against his nefarious activities being S/s Defence Secretary of Hmar Peoples Convention (D), GHQ (HPC), an armed outfit. 8. In fact, the petitioner is a history-sheeter and no one is able to raise a voice against his nefarious activities being S/s Defence Secretary of Hmar Peoples Convention (D), GHQ (HPC), an armed outfit. 8. By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 : 2012 Legal Eagle (SC) 474, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that even though a history-sheeter is entitled to bail, but a significant factor to be considered is nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked and that grant of bail depends upon nature of the offence, manner in which it is committed and its impact on society. In the instant case, the petitioner being history-sheeter and the offence alleged against him is serious in nature. Therefore, he cannot be enlarged on bail and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The case of the petitioner is that he is not a member of the organization called Hmar Peoples Convention (Democratic) and he never committed any offence alleged against him. The complaint was made after 5 months of the alleged. Further, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are only hearsay and not supported by any cogent materials. 11. On the other hand, it is the say of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is the main accused, who caused the death of Vanramlal as he himself admitted that he had assaulted the deceased as well as Lalhungmuon, who was accompanying the deceased during the time of the incident. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. 12. Admittedly, the complainant has filed the complaint before the Churachandpur Police Station on 4.5.2022 for the occurrence happened on 20.12.2021. The delay in lodging the complaint though has been stated by the complainant in the complaint, the same will be decided only at the time of trial. However, such a huge delay of nearly 5 months is to some extent disturb the minds of this Court. The reason set out by the petitioner for the delay is that the petitioner being S/s Defence Secretary of Hmar Peoples Convention (D). The aforesaid reason given by the complainant is not convincing. As reported, the investigation is underway. 13. However, such a huge delay of nearly 5 months is to some extent disturb the minds of this Court. The reason set out by the petitioner for the delay is that the petitioner being S/s Defence Secretary of Hmar Peoples Convention (D). The aforesaid reason given by the complainant is not convincing. As reported, the investigation is underway. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution examined good number of witnesses and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded, which corroborates the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime of committing the murder of Vanramlal. Admittedly, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are all matter of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the murder of the deceased Vanramlal. 14. While dismissing the bail petition of the petitioner, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 11.7.2022 observed that the petitioner being a member of a banned outfit will be in a position to hamper or tamper with the investigation. Admittedly, the said contention of the prosecution is not supported by any materials. Prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime has not been established and as stated supra, the same would be proved after conclusion of the trial. 15. Earlier, when the petitioner approached the learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Churachandpur, the learned Special Judge dismissed the bail petition by observing as under: '6. Considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegation leveled against the accused person, released of the accused person at this stage will be in the interest of the investigation and justice. Further, it is also observed that the petitioner being a member of a banned outfit (HPC-D) will be in a position to hamper or tamper with the investigation and the same is at an early stage. 8. Accordingly, considering all aspects of the case into consideration, I find no prima facie ground to release the accused person on bail at this stage. Hence, the instant bail application stands rejected.' 16. As stated supra, there is no prima facie proof to show that the petitioner has committed the offence alleged against him. 8. Accordingly, considering all aspects of the case into consideration, I find no prima facie ground to release the accused person on bail at this stage. Hence, the instant bail application stands rejected.' 16. As stated supra, there is no prima facie proof to show that the petitioner has committed the offence alleged against him. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be proved only after conclusion of the trial and at this stage, it is highly impossible to believe the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Merely because the petitioner involved in several FIRs is not a ground to deny bail to him. 17. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. In the instant case, nothing has been produced to show that if bail granted to the petitioner, he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 18. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be penalized merely because the investigation reveals his involvement as stated by the prosecution. 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. 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. In fact, the petitioner has been languishing in prison for nearly five months and has been deprived of his rights of freedom and liberties, and to extend the judicial custody the prosecution ought to establish convincing circumstances. 19. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 : 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 6, 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.' 20. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 : 2008 Legal Eagle (SC) 1673, 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. 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)' 21. 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. 22. 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 on the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police, 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. 23. Time and again, 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. 24. 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. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 24. 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. 25. 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 to speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be denied bail. 26. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is in custody for nearly five months. 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. 27. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 : 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 973, 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 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.' 28. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this 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. 29. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 : 1977 Legal Eagle (SC) 276, 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. 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. 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.' 30. 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 : 2004 Legal Eagle (SC) 252. 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 ball 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. 31. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 : 2018 Legal Eagle (SC) 68, 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. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. As stated supra, the learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Churachandpur dismissed the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 11.7.2022 holding that the petitioner being a member of banned outfit will be in a position to hamper or tamper with the investigation and the same is at an early stage. Admittedly, the said finding of the learned Special Judge is without any supporting materials. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner would involve oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge ought not to have arrived at such a finding. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient bonds and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also he will abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 35. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient bonds and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also he will abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 35. 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 furthermore, as admitted by the prosecution and also considering incarceration of the petitioner for nearly five months, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 36. Accordingly, Bail Application No.21 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.66(05)2022 under Section 302/34 IPC on the file of Churachandpur Police Station, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two local sureties each of the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Churachandpur with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of his residence and the complete address of such place shall be furnished to the learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Churachandpur at the time of release. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (iii) If the petitioner has passport, he shall also surrender the same before the learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Churachandpur. (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 investigation and as and when required by the investigating officer, he shall appear before him. (vii) The petitioner shall not commit similar offence. (viii) 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. (vii) The petitioner shall not commit similar offence. (viii) 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. (ix) 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. (x) The respondent police is directed to expedite the investigation and take necessary further steps in accordance with law.