Pheiroijam Ningol Karam Ongbi And Others vs State Of Manipur And Others

M.V. Muralidaran, J

These applications have been filed by petitioners - Pheiroijam Ningol Karam Ongbi Romita Devi and Pheiroijam Ongbi Ningol Landhoni Devi, seeking to enlarge them on bail.

The petitioner in Bail Application No.36 of 2019 is an employee of Standard Robarth Higher Secondary School, while the petitioner in Bail Application No.37 of 2019 is the PrincipaI-cum-Founder of the said school.

The case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2019, one of the students of Standard Robarth Higher Secondary School viz., Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu, aged about 12 years, daughter of N.Tomchou Singh of Thangmeiband Meisnam Leikai, Imphal West, who was staying at Standard Robarth Higher Secondary School Boarding, Canchipur, was found hanging inside the hostel dormitory. On getting information, Singjamei Police Station had registered FIR No.138 (7) 2019 under Section 305/34 IPC and Section 75 of Juvenile and Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, "JJ Act") against the petitioners and the petitioners were arrested on 03.08.2019 on their own surrender before the police. Subsequently, Section 420/302 IPC were added to the existing FIR on the request of the father of the deceased victim.

According to the petitioner in Bail Application No.36 of 2019, she is a married woman and mother of two school goers, who need her care and protection at the tender age of 12 and 5 years respectively. It is stated that her husband, who is serving in the Indian Army was recently transferred and posted outside the State of Manipur and he has to join his new place of posting in due course of time. Hence, the minor children will require the attention of their mother, which, if delayed, will severely affect the minor children and is against the principle of child right. According to her, there is no situation for believing that she committed the crime as alleged in the prosecution story. Being a Co-ordinator, she has no direct interaction with the students and also worked in the school only during day time from 9.00 am to 3.30 pm.

According to the petitioner in Bail Application No.37 of 2019, the main allegation against her is for not following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on child safety and for not providing necessary medical and psychological assistance to the children staying in the school coming from different social, cultural and economic background. According to the petitioner, the deceased victim is from a broken family, which was never informed to the school authority by the guardians of the deceased. The biological mother and the deceased have been separated since long back and the family members are not co-operating with the investigation. On the other hand, she has given full co-operation to the ongoing investigation. Further, the allegations levelled against her do not constitute any criminal offence at all. According to the petitioner, she has never been a class teacher of the deceased, nor a member of the teaching faculty of the class, in which the deceased had studied. She has been made an accused in the case just because she happened to be the Principal-cum-Founder of the school.

The common grievance of the petitioners in these applications is that they have been falsely implicated in this case and the allegations levelled against them are false and concocted. Further, the petitioners are having a very good antecedents and belong to a good family and there is no criminal case pending against them. Since the petitioners were in custody from 03.08.2019, they sought bail and they undertake to abide by the condition, if any, imposed by this Court.

The second respondent has filed affidavit-in- opposition which is stated as follows :-

"2. The brief facts of the case is that on 18/07/2019 at 5:30 am, the Officer-in-Charge, Singjamei Police Station, Imphal West District, Manipur received an information from the Imphal West Control Room (Mike 30) that one student namely, Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu (12) D/o N. Tomchou Singh of Thangmeiband Meisnam Leikai, Imphal West PO & PS Imphal staying and studying at Standard Robarth Higher Secondary School, Canchipur, Imphal West District, Residential Block-B, Girls Hostel was found hanging inside the hostel room. Hence a suo motu case under UD case No.6/SJM-PS/2019 dated 18/07/2019 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and the investigation was set into motion.

That initially the case was investigated by the Singjamei Police Station, Imphal West District, Manipur. But considering the issue involved a Special Investigating Team (SIT) was constituted on 25th July, 2019 and the SIT was headed and led by the present deponent.

(i) That during the stage of investigation of the case as UD case, the previous [investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence i.e. 1st floor hostel of Standard Robarth Hr. Sec.School, Canchipur and conducted spot inspection along with the Mobile Forensic Team of FSL, Pangei.

(ii) The dead body of Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu (12) D/o N. Tomchou of Thangmeiband Meisnam Leikai was identified by her uncle, namely, N. Kumar Mangang (63) S/o (L) N. Chandramani of Thangmeiband Meisnam Leikai.

(iii) Inquest over the dead body was conducted by Mohammed Nazmul Huda Khan, Executive Magistrate (IW) under video coverage.

That Inquest over the dead body was conducted by Mohamned Nazmul Huda Khan, Executive Magistrate (IW) under video coverage. After the inquest, the dead body was kept at RIMS Mortuary. On the same day i.e., 18/7/2019 Post Mortem examination over the dead body was conducted at RIMS in presence of an Executive Magistrate and two relatives of the deceased. The PM examination was done under full video coverage.

That in due course of investigation, examined a good number of PWs including most of the students staying in block-B of the hostel of the school and some other Wardens of the Hostel and their statements recorded separately.

That in due course of investigation, it has been ascertained that the Wardens gave the students the task of cleaning their room, corridors, stairs and washrooms on roster system. Sometimes the students are made to fetch water from the water tank.

Further the school gave punishments like watering plants, frog jump, beating by bamboo sticks, fetching water from the tank, standing outside the class holding ear etc. for making noise, sleeping in the class while reading etc. Sometimes they were also given punishment for not obeying orders of the teachers.

That on investigation it is further revealed that on 18th July, 2019 when the rising bell rang, one of the students saw Babysana (the deceased) .She was frightened and she cried. On hearing her cry, the other roommates also woke up and they informed their warden Miss Jinnty.

All the students stated that they did not hear any kind of sound on that night and they were not sure of the reasons for Babysana to be taking such extreme step.

That the school authorities have been examined and the basic facilities that were to be available for safety and care of the students were also reviewed. In doing that, it was found out that Standard Robarth School had not fulfilled some of the criteria of the Supreme Court guidelines on child safety in schools that could have prevented commission of the act (hanging) by Babysana. On further collection of evidence it was also discovered that the school authorities had not taken up preventive measures with regard to handling of emotionally vulnerable children such as Babysana and timely passing of information to the guardians about the emotional state of the children, including Babysana.

That in due course of investigation collected the PM report in respect of the deceased person. In the said PM report, it is written, among others that - larynx congested, hymen intact and the concerned Doctor opined that the death was due to asphyxia resulting from hanging.

That from all the above facts and circumstances, it can be inferred that Babysana was driven to take such extreme step of hanging at such young age due to the lack of prevalent psycho-social support at Standard Robarth School, Canchipur and lack of attention to students' well being.

Subsequently, the said UD case was converted into FIR No.138(7)2019 SJM-PS u/s 305/34 IPC & Sec.75 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act on the strength of a written report dated 23/07/2019 at 3.30 pm. of the OC/Singjamei Police Station.

During the investigation of the case, most of the students staying at Standard Robarth Residential Block-B, Girls Hostel along with the deceased Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu were examined. They stated that the Wardens of the said school gave punishment to the students like making the students clean the toilets, sweeping and mopping the class rooms and dormitory and also make them fetch water. Even the students are beaten with bamboo sticks and made them perform frog jump also. The students are also made to stand for long duration when they were found sleeping in the class and for not speaking English. It also came to light that on 17/07/2019, Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu was made to fetch 10(ten) buckets of water by the warden.

That on the demand made by the family members of the deceased and members of the JAC (Joint Action Committee) on 25/07/2019, Superintendent of Police/ lmphal West made a requisition for conducting 2nd Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased namely, N. Babysana Chanu to the Director Medical and Health Service, Government of Manipur.

That on 25th July, 2019, the District Magistrate, lmphal East passed order No.DM(lE)/5/10/2017 for conducting the 2 nd Post Mortem Examination at JNIMS Hospital, Porompat detailing one executive Magistrate, lmphal East District, Manipur for the 2nd Post Mortem Examination under video coverage.

That on the next day i.e. 26th July, 2019, 2nd P.M. examination was conducted at JNIMS Mortuary over the dead body of the deceased. After the 2nd P.M. examination, the dead body was kept in the JNIMS Morgue as the family members of the deceased refused to take the dead body.

That in the 2nd PM report of JNIMS Hospital, Porompat, the Medical Officer opined that "The post Mortem findings are suggestive of death due to asphyxia resulting from hanging".

That on 27/07/2019, received a report, addressed to SP/Imphal West from the father of the deceased namely, Ningthoujam Tomchou Singh S/o (L) N. Chandramani Singh stating among others, that circumstances leading to the death of his daughter was quite suspicious of having been murdered by some unknown persons who are also associated with the school authority and requested to incorporate Section 302 IPC in the present case. Subsequently, section 302 IPC was added in the present case.

That the Director, FSL, Manipur, Pangei vide his letter under Memo No.31/10/88-FSL/BIO dated 28/08/2019 has furnished the Report/Opinion No.98(8)19/Bio-Sero, dated 28/08/2019 in connection with the examination of the exhibits of the case. The results/observations/opinion of the Scientific Officer (Biology), Biology/Serology Division FSL. Manipur, Pangei is as under:-

The fibres found on the exhibits marked as S-1 , S-3, S-8 & S-12(a)&(b) are synthetic fibres having similar physical characteristics.

Saliva stain of human origin could be detected from the exhibit marked as S-5.

Urinal stain could be detected from the exhibits marked as S-2 & S-6.

Human blood of blood group 'AB" could be detected from the exhibit marked as S-4 & S-9. Menstrual blood could be detected from the exhibit marked as S-4.

Any seminal stain, spermatozoa or foreign bodies could not be detected from the exhibits marked as S-2, S-6, S-7, S-10 & S-11.

That the roommates of Late Babysana Chanu were examined in connection with the case. During examination, one of the girl students stated that in the evening of 14/07/2019, she re-joined her boarding after vacation. On that night, she saw a plastic yellow rope in the rack used by late Babysana Chanu where she (late Babysana Chanu) kept her things/note books etc. She asked Babysana Chanu about the rope. Babysana Chanu replied that it was a valuable thing that she brought from her house and told her not to touch it. During investigation, it has been ascertained that Babysana Chanu was staying with her parents at a farm house belonging to her uncle (elder brother of her father) namely, Ningthoujam Kumar Mangang of Haraorou Maning Leikai. On 01/08/2019 at 6.55 pm one plastic rope, yellow in colour of length 38 feet and 1 ½ inch having 6(six) knots and one plastic rope yellow in colour of length 4 feet 4 inch having one knot was seized from the said farm house on production by one Smt. Ningthoujam lbecha Devi who was found occupying the farm house.

That information was sought from the - (1) Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, (2) Director of Education(S) and (3) Council of Higher Secondary Education Manipur whether the Standard Robarth Higher Secondary School, Canchipur has valid permission to run a residential School and a Day scholar school. It has been confirmed through written reply that no permission was granted for opening and running of two schools by the Standard Robarth Higher Secondary School, Canchipur.

The residential school is found to be unauthorised. In the said unauthorised residential school in the Girls' Hostel Block-B Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu was found dead by hanging with a yellow colour plastic rope.

That at the present stage of investigation of the case, though there is suspicion by the members of the JAC (Joint Action Committee), some students community and some sections of general public that Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu might have been murdered by unknown person/persons which amount to offence falling u/s 302 IPC, till date, there is no any supportive evidence in this regard.

That in the 1st Post Mortem Examination report, the opinion of the concerned Medical Officer RIMS, lmphal as to the cause of death is "The death was due to asphyxia resulting from hanging". In the 2nd Post Mortem examination report, the opinion of the concerned Medical Officer of JNIMS, Porompat, lmphal East as to the cause of death is

"The post mortem findings are suggestive of death due to asphyxia resulting from hanging". Further, the Scientific Officer of the Mobile Forensic Unit-lmphal West has opined that hanging was Ante-mortem, partial and could be suicidal in nature.

That since the case is still under investigation, maximum efforts are being made to find the truth behind the death of Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu. When the investigation of the case is arrived at a logical end, those lPC sections which are not applicable will be deleted and charges will be framed only on those sections which have sufficient evidences to prove the charge against the accused persons.

Just after her arrest, Smt. Pheiroijam Ongbi Longjam Ningol Landhoni Devi was interrogated and during interrogation she admitted the fact of running 2(two) schools, one unauthorisedly in the name of the same school which amount to cheating u/s 420 IPC. She also admitted the fact of issuing 2(two) similar l-Cards in the name of two different students of the same Class, same Section and same Roll Number. There is sufficient evidence to prove that most of the students are cheated, assaulted, abused and wilfully neglected thereby causing the child students unnecessary mental suffering which amount to offence falling u/s 75 of JJ Act.

That there is evidence that by the act of cheating, assault, abuse and wilful neglect on the residential students by some of the wardens and other school authorities, under the actual charge and direct control of Smt. Pheiroijam Ongbi Longjam Ningol Landhoni along with some of the school authority had caused the child students unnecessary mental suffering. There is also evidence of the involvement of Smt. Pheiroijam Ongbi Longjam Ningol Landhoni in the abetment of suicide of the deceased child student Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu u/s 305 IPC.

That during the police custody remand, the accused person namely Smt. Pheiroijam Ningol Karam Ongbi Romita Devi, who is Co-ordinator of the said residential school was interrogated very carefully and minutely. During interrogation, she admitted the fact of running 2(two) schools, one unauthorisedly in the name of the same school which amount to cheating falling u/s 420 IPC. She also admitted the fact of issuing 2(two) similar l-cards in the name of two different students of the same Class, same Section and same Roll No. There is sufficient evidence to prove that most of the students are cheated, assaulted, abused and wilfully neglected thereby causing the child students unnecessary mental suffering which amount to offence falling u/s 75 of JJ Act. Since, by the act of cheating, assault, abuse and wilful neglect on the residential students by some of the wardens and other school authorities under her actual charge and direct control as Co-ordinator thereby causing the child students unnecessary mental suffering, there is also evidence of her involvement in the abetment of suicide of the deceased child student Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu u/s 305 IPC.

That the Professor, Department of Medicine JNIMS, Porompat Imphal East had issued a certificate countersigned by the Medical Superintendent, JNIMS, Hospital Prorompat ImphaI East stating, among others, that the accused person Pheiroijam Ongbi Longjam Ningol Landhoni Devi who was under treatment and admitted in the JNIMS Hospital may be allowed to attend the Court proceedings at Uripok Cheirap Court on 06/08/2019 with Ambulance and health personal and she may be brought back to the JNIMS Porompat for further management from Psychiatry and Orthopaedics Department. As such, the said accused person was produced before the Court of CJM/IW in an Ambulance of JNIMS Hospital along with the other accused person namely Smt. Pheiroijam Ningol Karam Ongbi Romita Devi on 06/08/2019 along with a prayer for remanding them in the judicial custody for a period of 15 days. The Hon'ble Court allowed the prayer of the IO of the case and remanded them in the judicial custody for a period of 14 days till 19/08/2019. As directed by the Hon'ble Court, the Jail authority has admitted the accused person Pheiroijam Ongbi Longjam Ningol Landhoni Devi in the JNIMS Hospital for her further medical treatment."

By narrating the above facts and the stage of the investigation the Prosecution strongly opposing for granting bail to the petitioners on the ground that both the petitioners in the bail applications are influenced persons they may tamper the witnesses if they will grant bail. Therefore, the Prosecution has strongly objected for granting bail to the petitioners/accused in both the applications.

The counsel for the respondent no. 1 Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Addl. PP has produced the following judgments for supporting his arguments :-

(i) (2005) 8 SCC 380 reported in State of T.N. vs. S.A. Raja. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 has passed an order as follows :-

"9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order wasunsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents."

(ii) (1987) 2 SCC 684 reported in Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another;

In para 6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order :-

"6. ............... No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by court, nonetheless when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder and his successive bail applications are rejected on merit there being prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the court. Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. Learned Judge was unduly influenced by the concept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case."

(iii) (2002) 3 SCC 598 reported in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh & Others.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order in paras 3 and 4 of the judgment as follows :-

"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. Jotendro in Bail Application No.36 of 2019 and Mr. M. Gunedhor, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 37 of 2019 have produced the following judgments for supporting their arguments :-

(i) 2014 Legal Eagle 230 reported in Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

(ii) Sundeep Kumar Bafna, reported in (2014) 16 CC 623: 2015 (3) SCC (Cril) 558;

(iii) Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2018, dated 06.2.2018 (Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another);

(iv) Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, reported in 1980 AIR (SC) 785 : 1980 CrLJ 426;

(v) Criminal Appeal No. 1603 of 2009, dated 22.10.2019 (P. Chidambram v. CBI)

Counsel for the seventh respondent who is the father of the victim has filed an objection for the bail application by way of an affidavit-in-opposition as follows :-

"11. That, the reiteration the word "hanging" in para No. 10 is objected in the strongest term. And such submission is without any cogent support. Is it possible for a 5ˊ2˝ teen-ager to be hung to death from a five feet support with all his feet found muddy, is the bed a muddy bed, is it possible to die of hanging when the buttock support the edge of the bed. Before about 50 witnesses, the Junior Accused warden had said that the deceased was found hanging with a lady scarf and how it turned out to be a colourful rope from the deceased resident ; why there was cut mark in hand and distended (Injury) in face , abdomen and genital part of the deceased . How there was serious sign of bizarre sexual assault when uterus of the Victim was found in the abdominal canal which is called in medical term pneumoperitoneum connected to sexual activities reported within the last years worldwide (code Journal of Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2000 Oct-Dec; 4(4) 297-300).

So, with all facts, the victim was badly sexual assaulted somewhere nearby the muddy place of the Hostel and hung deliberately when all the room mates were out otherwise somehow any of the victims above 30 room mates would have directly witness the death. And it is denied that Section 420/302 IPC was added under the request of the deceased's father. Without prima facie such thing is not possible. The present Accused made this tragic accident happened and knowing the full fact of incident and remaining quite and pretending to be innocent. And the investigation of this case hampered by her with the drawing of high profile Cabinet Minister being made present on the day of the incident with strong police force. In short, she has been manipulating the crime since the day 1 of the incident by using her influences.

This is reason why State Government is attempting to bring CBI investigation, the process of which had been done and it is sure to rope in.

That, with regard to para No. 11, it is denied for the fact that if the family is broken one, the victim father would have settle the case in compromise by taking the money as proposed to be offered in big Lakhs as feelers were approaching to this victim family the present Deponent. Hence, this para is a lie.

That, it is the investigating team favouring the Accused by taking the false statement based on hear say evidence making it looked like Dying Declaration. The Fact is that no death man speaks. How do we belief or will it be acceptable by law, a make believe story of what the Victim had said. In fact, hearsay evidence is not acceptable by law. The Victim is a poor chap for him, it is impossible to oil the palm of investigation. Hence this para No. 12 is denied.

That, the presence of "AB" Blood group in the left middle finger of the Victim is the criminal signature, it ought be proved by the confirming the blood group of all the Accused persons including the present Accused person. She is the Owner cum Principal of this Institution, anything happen to her Institution, she shall be responsible. Therefore, this para No. 1 is denied.

That, where was her son, an Accused on the day of the incident when the Victim was sexual assaulted and murder, her son's blood group ought to be confirmed. If she is innocent, then why she had invited prominent cabinet minister to stand guard along with a strong police force on the day of accident. If it was a mere suicide, why there were signs of physical tortures and muddy leg with deep cut/injury mark on her hand and other part of the victim's body. Under such circumstances, para Nos. 14 and 15 are denied.

That, the present Accused person is the Owner cum principal as anything happened in her School is responsible to her and how did she allowed to enter the perpetrator of the crime to enter the secured premise of her institution guarded by abIe persons/ private security and monitor by CC TV Camera why did she hide the CC TV camera ? If she produced the CC TV Camera, the perpetrator of the crime would have been nabbed long before. Hence, this para Nos

16 is denied.

That, second post mortem report, "suggestive of death due to asphyxia resulting from hanging" shall be the correct legal position. The Investigation has shown bias and devoid of truth from day 1 of the investigation as such the Government of Manipur by an Order dated 29th July, 2019 had referred to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India for investigation of the case by the CBI . It is only a matter of time that this sensitive case shall be handled by the CBI. So, any attempt to let loose the Accused Persons before the emergence of CBI would caused considerable affect in collection of evidences. Further, the Accused person is an influential person, may have flown out of the country or abscond within the security premise of his cronies. Further, the Apex Court never directed to let loose any Accused when the gravity of crime is fearsome or hair-raising. When her own student was found murder with the highest degree of cruelty, "tongue protruded" by the victim is the symptom of obvious cruelty plus madness shown in crime commission and this Accused simply washing her hand and blaming the crime to the Victim herself indicates her level of participation in this crime somehow or the other. Hence, this para No. 17 is denied .

That, with regard to para No. 18, the present Accused Person is lodged comfortably in the Special ward of JNIMS wherein she can accommodate her family and JNIMS is known for retaining the best Doctors in the State comparable to the all India Level and no doctor of JNIMS gives opinion regarding their un-ability. Hence, this para No. 18 is denied.

That, as regard para No. 20, second post mortem report, "suggestive of death due to asphyxia resulting from hanging "shall be the correct legal position. The Investigation has shown bias and devoid of truth from day 1 of the investigation as such the Government of Manipur by an Order dated 29th July , 2019 had referred to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) , Government of India for investigation of the case by the CBI . It is only a matter of time that this sensitive case shall be handled by the CBI. So, any attempt to let loose the Accused Persons before the emergence of CBI would caused considerable affect in collection of evidences . When her own student was found murder with the highest degree of cruelty , "tongue protruded" by the victim is the symptom of obvious cruelty plus madness shown in crime commission and this Accused simply washing her hand and blaming the crime to the Victim herself indicates her level of participation in this crime somehow or the other. Under such circumstances, nobody can influence the circumstances of the fact and outcome of the CBI investigation.

That, as regard para Nos. 21 and 22, it is the high profile status the Accused person affecting the police investigation requiring maximum time and patience to adduce the truth of the police Investigation as such these paras are denied.

That, with regard to para No. 29, the Police investigation had confirmed the presence of a Blood Group, "AB" in middle left finger of the Victim which is not the blood group of the Victim as such the criminal signatures in the form of blood group of all the Accused persons is required to be confirmed. In such event, the present Accused cannot be moved on bail. Therefore, this paragraph is object in the strongest term.

That, with regard to para No. 29 to 33 , the present Accused Person is lodged comfortably in the Special ward of JNIMS wherein she can accommodate her family as such there is no question of separation from family. The Accused, Bail Applicant is an influential person is shown from the fact that she is lodged in Special Ward of JNIMS, such ward cannot be easily available to normal person. Somehow due to her privilege, such first class or top of the class facilities is availed to her as such no serious incarceration is imposed against her and her remaining in judicial custody is of top priority in order to preserved the evidences and she is precursor of all evidences to this unfortunate incident. Hence, these paras are objected keenly."

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are in no way connected with the alleged crime. He would submit that since petitioners are holding the post of Principal-cum-Founder and Co-ordinator of the school, they have no direct interaction with the students and, therefore, the present criminal case foisted against them is not maintainable. Moreover, the petitioners were arrested on 03.8.2019 and were in custody for more three months. Further, the petitioner in Bail Application No.37 of 2019 is aged person and both the petitioners have to look after their family. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for bail.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that since the investigation is under progress and serious allegations were levelled against the petitioners, they cannot be enlarged on bail. Further, if they were enlarged on bail, they will definitely tamper the witnesses.

Mr. S. Abung who appeared for the respondent no. 7 has produced a Journal with the heading "Sexual Activity as Cause for Non-Surgical Pneumoperitoneum". It is stated as follows :-

"Due to a trend toward more experimental sexual activity and less taboo in media and society about this topic, an increasing number of reports of non-surgical pneumoperitoneum connected to sexual activities has been described within the last years worldwide.

A typical case example is that of a 24-year-old woman, 0 gravid, who appeared in the emergency department complaining of severe abdominal pain.....

On further questioning, a complete sexual history was obtained. The patient revealed that she had intercourse, during which her partner forcefully blew air into her vagina prior to all episodes of pneumoperitoneum. She remembered that the pain had started four hours after each occasion.

The patient was discharged with instructions to avoid further cunnilingus with oro-vaginal insufflation."

The learned counsel for victim's father submitted that the petitioners are responsible for the death caused to the victim, as on the fateful day, the victim was staying in the school hostel. He would submit that since the investigation has shown bias and devoid of truth from day one of the investigation, the Government of Manipur, referred to the DoPT, Government of India for investigation of the case by CBI. Hence, any attempt to let loose the petitioners before the emergence of CBI would cause considerable effect in collection of evidences. He would further submit that since the petitioners are Influential persons, they cannot be enlarged on bail. Further, if they were granted bail, they may flee the country or abscond within the security premises of their cronies.

This Court, considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

The case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.2019 at 5.30 A.M., Singjamei police received an information from the Imphal West Control Room that one minor student viz., Ningthoujam Babysana Chanu, aged about 12 years, who was staying at Standard Robarth Residential Block-B, Girls Hostel was found hanging inside the hostel room. Based on the information, UD Case No.6 of 2019 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and thereafter, the same was converted into as FIR No.138(7)2019 under Section 305/34 IPC and Section 75 of JJ Act and later Section302 IPC was also added in the said FIR.

In the present case, it appears that apart from the petitioners herein, other accused including the son of the petitioner in Bail Application No.37 of 2019 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

Earlier, when the petitioners have filed regular bail applications before this Court, vide order dated 27.9.2019, this Court, dismissed the said applications on the permission sought for by their counsel and liberty was given to them to file bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed Criminal Misc (B) Case Nos.100 and 101 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West.

By an order dated 07.10.2019, Criminal Misc (B) Case Nos.100 and 101 of 2019 came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The operative portion of order reads thus:

"For the foregoing reasons, at the present stage, I am satisfied that there are prima facie case against the accused and co-accused persons of committing offences under Sec.420/305 IPC & Sec. 75 JJ(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Further, as the investigation is in full swing regarding Section 305/302 IPC, considering the view of her probability of tampering of witnesses, at the present stage, I do not find any ground to release the accused person on bail and thus the bail application is rejected and disposed of."

The petitioners in these bail applications are, admittedly, Co-ordinator and Principal-cum-Founder of Standard Robarth Higher Secondary School, Canchipur. In fact, the petitioners were arrested on 03.8.2019 in connection with the present case and in custody till date.

The ground for seeking bail by the petitioner in Bail Application No.36 of 2019 is that she has to care her two school going children, who were aged 12 and 5 respectively, and that her husband, who was serving in Indian Army, was recently transferred outside the State of Manipur. Since her husband was transferred outside the State of Manipur, nobody is available to look after her children. She also stated that there is no direct allegation against her for the involvement in the offence.

The petitioner in Bail Application No.37 of 2019 has stated that she hails from a highly reputed and respected family having no past criminal records and is also having high prestige and reputation before the public in general and fellow colleagues and the family of her is firmly anchored in the Society. According to her, she was suffering from multiple old age ailments and now she is undergoing treatment at JNIMS, Porompat. She also states that there is no direct allegation against her for the involvement in the offence because she is the Principal -cum-Founder of the School her name was falsely implicated in this case.

In Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"27. The impugned Order is, accordingly, set aside. The Learned Single Judge shall consider the Appellant's plea for surrendering to the Court and dependent on that decision, the Learned Single Judge shall, thereafter, consider the Appellant's plea for his being granted bail. The Appellant shall not be arrested for a period of two weeks or till the final disposal of the said application, whichever is later. We expect that the learned Single Judge shall remain impervious to any pressure that may be brought to bear upon him either from the public or from the media as this is the fundamental and onerous duty cast on every Judge."

In Dataram Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"17. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. This is a matter that will, of course, be dealt with by the trial judge. However, what is important, as far as we are concerned, is that during the entire period of investigations which appear to have been spread over seven months, the appellant was not arrested by the investigating officer. Even when the appellant apprehended that he might be arrested after the charge sheet was filed against him, he was not arrested for a considerable period of time. When he approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing the FIR lodged against him, he was granted two months time to appear before the trial judge. All these facts are an indication that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner. That being the case, the trial judge, as well as the High Court ought to have judiciously exercised discretion and granted bail to the appellant. It is nobodys case that the appellant is a shady character and there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had earlier been Involved in any unacceptable activity, let alone any alleged illegal activity.

In our view, taking all these and other factors into consideration, it would be appropriate if the appellant is granted bail on conditions that may be reasonably fixed by the trial judge. We order accordingly."

In Niranjan Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself."

In P.Chidambaram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, New Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280). There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that "flight risk" of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straight-jacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to "flight risk" is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved."

In the light of the above legal position, let us consider the present case. It is to be pointed out that while rejecting the bail applications, the learned Sessions Judge, focused on the nature of the allegations and the merits of the case, but the learned Sessions Judge did not keep in view the well settled principles for grant or refusal to grant bail.

The respondent police as well as the father of the deceased victim allege that but for the involvement of the petitioners as Co-ordinator and Principal-cum-Founder of the school, the alleged incident would not have occurred. Though the respondent police levelled several allegations in respect of the school, the same cannot be cogitated in these bail applications. The respondent police, after receiving information, registered the case and upon initial enquiry, arrested the petitioners herein and other accused.

Since the petitioner in Bail Application No.37 of 2019 is aged about 64 years and is in judicial custody from 03.8.2019 and is also suffering from age old ailments, which fact has not been denied by the respondent police as well as the father of the deceased victim, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is prima facie satisfied with the grounds raised by her in seeking bail. Further, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that she will not abscond and will not tamper the evidence and also taking into consideration the health condition of the said petitioner and there is no previous antecedents against her, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in Bail Application No.37 of 2019.

As far as the petitioner in Bali Application No.36 of 2019 is concerned, except her role as Co-ordinator of the school in question, she has no other role. Further, she was in judicial custody from 03.8.2019. The fact remains that she has to look after her two children, who were aged 12 and 5 respectively. Further, prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that she was involved in the crime. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having satisfied with the grounds seeking for bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in Bail Application No.36 of 2019.

In the result,

(i) Both the bail petitions are allowed.

(ii) The petitioners in Bail Application Nos.36 and 37 of 2019 are ordered to be released on bail, subject to the condition that they shall execute bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II.

(iii) The petitioners should not leave or move anywhere from their present abode without leave of this Court. The petitioners should surrender their passports to the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court custody.

(iv) The petitioners in Bail Application Nos.36 and 37 of 2019 shall report before the Respondent police for 30 days daily at 10.00 a.m. and thereafter shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required, before the authority concerned.

(v) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and they should not tamper or hamper the evidence or witnesses either during investigation or trial.

(vi) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law, as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283.

A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel of both the parties and also to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II; Superintendent of Police, Imphal West and Officer-in-charge, Singjamei Police Station for information.