The Manipur High Court on Monday directed the Special Judge, NIA to release Khumlo Abi Anal, leader of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K), Chandel in connection with the 2015 Paraolon ambush.
Khumlo was arrested by the Manipur Police on June 11, 2015, in connection with the killing of 18 Army personnel in Chandel district on June 4, 2015. Later, the NIA took custody for further investigation.
Special Judge NIA, however, said the “charges framed against the accused are serious and there is also a high possibility of him absconding if released on bail.”
A division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice MV Muralidaran, stated that though the offences charged against the accused are serious, he is yet to be proved guilty of the same. Meanwhile, he has spent sufficient jail-time, entitling him to grant of bail.
The accused has been incarcerated for over six-and-half years but the trial may not conclude any time soon. Although the trial is proceeding now, its progress has been adversely impacted by Covid-19 pandemic and there is no guarantee as to how much more time it would take. As, only a fourth of the listed witnesses have been examined till date and the time that would be taken to examine the rest of them cannot even be estimated, stated the division bench.
However, the HC, giving importance to the serious nature of the charges levelled against the accused, opined that stringent conditions would have to be imposed while granting him bail. It noted that the Special Judge voiced the apprehension that there is a high likelihood of his absconding if granted bail.
The HC gave conditions to the accused to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs 2,00,000 along with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (NIA), Manipur.
The accused should also furnish immovable property security to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (NIA), Manipur. The accused should deposit his passport, if he possesses one, before the Special Judge (NIA), Manipur, and should not leave the State of Manipur without the permission of the Special Judge (NIA), Manipur, the court conditioned.
The court further stated that the accused should report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Imphal Branch Office at Quarter No. G-1, Lamphel Officers Colony, Lamphelpat, PO & PSLamphel, Imphal West District, on every Saturday between 9:00 am -10:00 am and get his attendance duly recorded.
The HC warned that violation of any of the conditions would automatically result in cancellation of the bail order and it would be open to the NIA to immediately arrest the appellant again.
The Special Judge, NIA (Manipur) rejected the accused bail prayer four times. However, the accused approached the HC with a prayer to set aside his rejected bail order passed by the Special Judge, NIA on October 10, 2020 and release him on bail.
The HC set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, NIA and directed to release him on bail.
It may also be mentioned that the HC discussed the nature of charge levelled against the accused that the accused has been charged with offences under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act of 1967, though initially, offences mentioned in the FIR were under Sections 16 and 20 thereof.
Therefore, the more serious charge under Section 16 of the Act of 1967 has not been levelled against the appellant. Protected Witness-B is of no help to the NIA as he did not know the appellant and nothing against him. So far as Protected Witness-A’s testimony is concerned, the same may be of assistance to surmise that the appellant is a member of the proscribed organisation.
Even the statements of the other protected witnesses do not link him with the ambush directly. Thus, prima-facie, there is insufficient material to draw a conclusion or believe that the accusations against the accused are true.
It is for the NIA to adduce sufficient evidence during the course of the trial to establish the charges levelled against him. The mandate of the proviso to Section 43D (5) of the Act of 1967 therefore tilts the balance in favour of the accused.
