Asem Konungjao Singh vs Officer in Charge, Khongjom Police Station

2026:MNHC:200
NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL

Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025

Asem Konungjao Singh aged about 40 years S/o (L) A. Tomba Singh, a resident
of Samaram Maning (Sabal) Leikai, P.O. Wangjing, P.S. Kongjom, District
Thoubal, Manipur
… Petitioner/Accused
- Versus -

Officer-in-Charge, Kongjom P.S., Thoubal District, Manipur
… Respondent

B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner : Mr. K. Achouba, Adv.
For the respondent : Mr. H. Samarjit, PP & Mr. L. Somorendro Roy, Jr.GA
Date of reserved : 06.02.2026
Date of Judgement : 1 0.09.2026

JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(CAV)

[1] Heard Mr. K. Achouba, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned PP assisted by Mr. L. Somorendro Roy, learned jr.
GA for the State respondent.
[2] The present bail application has been filed by the
petitioner/accused under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 corresponding with
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for releasing him on bail in connection with
FIR Case No. 56(12) 2022 Khongjom P.S., under Section 6 of the Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025 Page 1 of 6

2026:MNHC:200
[3] The facts of the present case is that the petitioner/accused was
arrested by police on 17.02.2022 in connection with FIR Case No. 56(12) 2022
KJM-P.S. under Sections 6 POCSO Act and 506 IPC based on a complaint made
by victim mother that her daughter was sexual assaulted by the
petitioner/accused. The petitioner filed an application being Cril. Misc. (B) Case
No. 250 of 2023 before the Ld. Special Judge (POCSO), Thoubal, Manipur for
releasing him on bail and the same was rejected on 26.06.2023 by the Ld. Special
Judge (POCSO), Thoubal, as the Court was yet to receive police charge sheet
and in the nature of serious allegation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a first bail
application being Bail Appln. No. 21 of 2023 before this Court and the same was
disposed of on 17.10.2023 with a direction to the Ld. Special Court POCSO,
Thoubal to decide the charge hearing as expeditiously as possible keeping in
view of the provisions of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner again
filed another bail application being Bail Appln. No. 17 of 2024 before this Court
for releasing him on bail during the pendency of the charge hearing before the
Ld. Speical Court (POCSO), Thoubal and the same was disposed of on
09.09.2024 with a specific direction to the Ld. Special Court (POCSO), Thoubal,
Manipur to dispose of the present Spl. T/POCSO/6/2023 within a period of 5(five)
months from the date of order i.e. 09.09.2024. Vide order dated 19.10.2024 in
Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No. 6 of 2023, the Ld. Special Judge (POCSO),
Thoubal passed an order framing charge against the petitioner/accused for
offences under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act and 506 of the IPC. On 16.01.2025,
the Ld. Special Court (POCSO), Thoubal fixed 27.02.2025 for continuation of
P.W. Examination, but the Special Trial is not completed within the time (i.e. 5
months) stipulated by this Court. Hence, the present bail application.
[4] Mr. K. Achouba, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the 5 months’ time fixed by this Court for completion of the trial from the date
of order (i.e., 09.09.2024) has already expired on 08.02.2025 and the
prosecution has not filed any application before this Court for extending the
period for completion of trial beyond five months period fixed; and hence
continuation of the trial is without any jurisdiction and without authority. The
provisions of Section 35 of POCSO Act, 2012 for examination of victim within 30

Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025 Page 2 of 6

2026:MNHC:200
days of taking cognizance and completion of trial within one year of cognizance
is also violated. Cognizance was taken on 27.11.2023, charge was framed only
on 19.10.2024 after one year of cognizance and victim was examined much later
rd
on. The reason of filing the present application (3 one) is no the ground of non-
completion of trial within 5 months as directed by this Court in order dated
09.09.2024 and non-extension of time in this regard. On merit, Mr. K. Achouba,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is good ground for acquittal
as the allegation of penetrative sexual assault for three times could not be
established by the medical examination report of the victim, which gave a finding
ruling out penetrative sexual assault, but affirming possibility of sexual assault
simpliciter. It is pointed out that out of 10 witnesses cited by the prosecution, till
date only 4 PWs including the complainant, victim and two doctors have been
examined and with the slow pace of trial, it is not likely to complete within a
reasonable time.
[5] Mr. K. Achouba, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI:
(2012) 1 SCC 40 @ Para 21 to the point that “… The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventive. …”. Reliance is also place on the decision of Hussain v.
Union of India: AIR 2017 SC 1362 @ Para 11 “….. Deprivation of personal
liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. …. while a
person in custody may not be released if trial is delayed, trial has to be expedited
or bail has to be granted in such cases.”. Learned counsel further cites the
decision in Hanamant v. State of Karnataka: 2017 CriLJ 1477 where
accused was released on bail as FSL report did not support any recent sexual
intercourse contrary to as stated in the complaint. He refers to decision of this
Court in the case of Shamurailatpam Tomba Sharma v. State of Manipur:
2019:MNHC:1362 holding that the accused in custody for four months was
released on bail on submission of chargesheet as further custody and
interrogation was not required. Another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bhadresh Kumar Patel v. Union of India [SLP(Crl) No. 2622
of 2025, order dated 29.09.2025] , where accused in custody for two years
for narcotic offence was released on bail on ground of slow trial. Learned counsel

Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025 Page 3 of 6

2026:MNHC:200
submits that the present case is also covered by the decisions cited above and
the petitioner may be released on bail considering long incarceration without
much progress in trial and insufficient materials.
[6] Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, learned PP submits that the accused
and the victim are neighbours and if the accused is released on bail, it will
traumatize the victim. It is highlighted that the accused is involved in heinous
offence which, if convicted, liable for a maximum sentence upto 20 years. In a
bail application, the merit of the ongoing trial cannot be looked into by this Court.
The failure to complete the trial within 5 months as directed by this Court will
not automatically efface the trial in heinous offence against child. Repeated bail
applications are not maintainable without any substantive change in
circumstances. Learned PP relies on the decisions of Ramesh Kumar Singh v.
State of Bihar: 1987 (Suppl) SCC 335 and State of TN v. S A Raja: (2005)
8 SCC 380 .
[7] This Court has considered the materials on record and decisions
cited at bar. It may be noted that vide order dated 10.07.2026 passed by learned
Spl. Judge (POCSO), Thoubal, the case has been transferred to the court of
learned Special Judge, Fast Tract Special Court No.2, Lamphel Court Complex in
view of order dated 10.06.2026 passed by this Court in Transfer Petition (Crl.)
No. 2 of 2026.
[8] In the present case, the accused was arrested on 17.12.2022 and
he is in custody till date. In spite of direction of this Court in order dated
09.09.2024 to complete within 5 months, only 4 PWs have been examined till
date. No application has been moved by the prosecution for extension of time.
It is clarified that failure to do so does not efface the trial under POCSO; but as
a matter of prudence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution or on the Special
Judge to move an application for extension of time in view of specific direction.
It is seen that there is slow pace in the trial. Even if the medical examination
report of the victim ruled out penetrative sexual intercourse, but expressing
opinion on possibility of sexual offence; this Court is not expressing any opinion

Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025 Page 4 of 6

2026:MNHC:200
on this piece of evidence, but the same is referred for the limitation purpose of
bail application.
[9] In view of the above factual discussion and position of law, this
Court of considered view that the accused is entitled to bail on slow progress in
trial keeping in mind the long incarceration of more than three and half years.
In the circumstances, the petitioner is released on bail on submission of personal
bond of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand] with a surety [gazetted officer] of
like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge FTSC No.2, Lamphelpat
on the following conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the Court on every date fixed by the
Court or as directed by the Court from time to time.
(ii) He shall not try to influence any persons acquainted with the
facts of the present case.
(iii) He shall not temper with any materials/evidence of the case.
(iv) He shall not leave the State of Manipur without the leave of
the Special Judge, FTSC No.2, Lamphelpat.
(v) The passport, if any, of the petitioner shall be surrendered
before the Special Judge, FTSC No.2, Lamphelpat.
(vi) The petitioner shall not reside within 5 km radius from the
residence of the victim and shall not interact with the victim.
(vii) On violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the State
respondent is free to approach this Court for cancellation of
the bail.
[10] With these observations, Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025 is allowed and
disposed of.
[11] Before concluding, it may be clarified that this Court does not
express any opinion on the merit of the case including the complexity of the
petitioner in connection with the present FIR and nothing stated and observed
herein, shall prejudice the Trial Court in the ongoing trial. Any observations and
findings made herein is confined for disposal of the bail application and the same

Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025 Page 5 of 6

2026:MNHC:200
shall not construe as expression of the opinion by this Court on the merit of the
case. Trial Court is free to form its own opinion as per law in the factual
circumstances.
[12] Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned
Special Judge, FTSC No.2, Lamphelpat, Manipur for information.


Digitally signed by
Oinam Thoiba Meitei
Date: 2026.09.10
16:54:42 +05'30'
Oinam
Thoiba Meitei
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Thoiba

Bail Appln. No. 6 of 2025 Page 6 of 6