Supreme Court declines to cancel bail of two accused in the Manipur violence case, stresses speedy trial, legal aid and confidence-building measures for survivors.
New Delhi, May 28: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to interfere with the bail granted to two accused in the 2023 Manipur ethnic violence case involving the alleged gangrape and public parading of two women, while stressing the need to expedite the ongoing trial and strengthen support systems for survivors.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, along with Justice Sanjay Kumar Bagchi, heard a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Manipur High Court to two accused persons.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the victims informed the court that the survivors wanted to be heard directly. The bench noted the continuing trauma faced by victims and referred to disturbing reports received during monitoring of the violence-related cases.
“We have received disturbing reports. Some innocent children were killed. CRPF opened firing, the other side opened firing,” the Chief Justice observed during the proceedings.
The counsel representing the victims said the trial had earlier suffered delays because the survivors were reluctant to travel to Guwahati and also faced language barriers linked to the Kuki dialect. Internet shutdowns in the conflict-hit region had further complicated virtual appearances before the court, the lawyer submitted.
According to the submissions, one witness has already been examined while two others remain to depose. The court was informed that the trial could be concluded within six to seven months if proceedings continue without interruption.
However, the bench indicated that delay in the trial alone may not justify cancellation of bail. “That may not be a good ground to cancel bail,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Justice Bagchi observed that the bail had been granted partly because of procedural lapses and delays in investigation. Responding to this, counsel for the CBI argued that certain delays were unavoidable due to the requirement of sanction and procedural formalities.
The Supreme Court clarified that its present concern was focused on ensuring legal aid and confidence-building measures for the victims rather than reopening the bail issue immediately.
“We had kept this to give legal aid to the victims’ families. Rest issues, we will not interfere. Trial needs to be expedited,” the Chief Justice said.
The bench repeatedly emphasised the importance of restoring the survivors’ faith in the justice system. Justice Bagchi noted that since the case had already been transferred to Assam for trial, mechanisms for representation and victim support were now available.
“You have to ensure the confidence-building measure with the victim,” Justice Bagchi told the parties.
Senior advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for the victims, argued that the offences were of an exceptionally grave nature and pointed out that the same court had earlier recognised the “heinous nature” of the crime while hearing related proceedings in May last year.
Pasha submitted that despite this, the accused were later granted bail on grounds of delay in the trial. He argued that delay alone should not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations.
Justice Bagchi, however, observed that cancellation of bail required stronger and more exceptional grounds because personal liberty was also a constitutional consideration.
“We are impressed with the way the High Court granted bail. It’s a matter of liberty, so an egregious ground is required to cancel the bail,” the judge observed.
The court also heard concerns regarding three accused persons who are still absconding. Counsel for the victims alleged that the survivors had initially sought refuge in a police vehicle during the violence but were later left vulnerable after police personnel allegedly removed the vehicle keys and departed from the scene.
Justice Bagchi said the three accused had already been declared proclaimed offenders and noted that questions relating to larger conspiracy or complicity could still be examined during trial proceedings.
The bench further acknowledged the severe psychological impact on the survivors and stated that witness confidence and proper disclosure during trial remained essential.
The Chief Justice also referred to multiple status reports filed before the court by authorities overseeing relief, rehabilitation and prosecution efforts linked to the Manipur violence cases.
According to the status report submitted by the Manipur High Court, communication channels had been established between the registrars of the Manipur and Gauhati High Courts to coordinate legal aid arrangements for victims appearing in Assam courts.
The report stated that virtual conferences and coordination meetings had been held involving the Advocate General, Registrar General and senior CBI officials to address issues relating to travel, accommodation and logistical support for witnesses and victims.
The court was also informed that similar coordination measures had been initiated in 26 separate cases linked to the ethnic violence.
Another status report submitted by former Maharashtra Director General of Police Dattatray Padsalgikar stated that the law and order situation in Manipur remained fragile. The report referred to incidents that allegedly occurred on April 7 and April 18 this year and noted that continued protests were placing considerable pressure on state police forces.
The CBI informed the court that charge sheets had been filed in 21 cases related to the violence.
The Supreme Court noted in its order that trials had commenced in 10 out of the 297 cases transferred for investigation and prosecution. It also recorded that steps had been initiated for appointment of additional prosecutors and speeding up pending proceedings.
The bench directed authorities to continue providing legal aid lawyers familiar with Manipuri languages and dialects to assist survivors during the trial process. It further ordered that updated status reports regarding the progress of ongoing trials be filed before the next hearing.
Towards the end of the hearing, one advocate sought permission to address the court, claiming that he had only recorded the viral video linked to the incident. Counsel for the victims disputed the claim and alleged that the video had also been circulated.
The Chief Justice responded that if any specific issue arose later concerning custody or conduct of accused persons, the court could examine it at an appropriate stage.
