{
  "type": "article",
  "title": "Top Court Orders CBI and Trial Judge to Secure Appearance of Key Witnesses in Manipur Assault Trial",
  "summary": "The Supreme Court has instructed the CBI and the trial court to ensure two primary victim-witnesses appear for examination in the Manipur sexual violence trial, stressing that witness safety remains the state's responsibility.",
  "content": "The Supreme Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation and the designated trial court to ensure that two central victim-witnesses in the Manipur sexual violence matter appear without delay for examination, emphasising that proceedings must advance swiftly. The directive underlines the judicial urgency surrounding one of the most widely scrutinised cases to emerge from the ethnic turmoil that hit the northeastern state.\n\nBail Cancellation Plea and Witness Intimidation Concerns\nA bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana issued the directions during the hearing of petitions filed by the CBI seeking the cancellation of bail granted to two accused persons. Additional Solicitor General D P Singh, representing the investigative agency, raised alarms over witness vulnerability, submitting that the presence of the accused on bail could directly impede the victims' confidence to step forward and testify. Reminding the court of the trial's commencement, the law officer stated that the victims had been subjected to horrific sexual violence before being paraded and filmed.\n\nDefence Arguments on Trial Pace and Reasons for Absences\nSenior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing on behalf of one of the accused, countered the agency's stance by arguing that the CBI had failed to conduct the prosecution at an adequate pace. He pointed out to the judges that the case involves around 30 witnesses and the matter is currently at its second stage of proceedings. During the exchange, Justice Bagchi questioned why the victim-witnesses had not appeared for examination on the scheduled dates.\n\nAdvocate Nizam Pasha, representing the victim-complainant, clarified the circumstances surrounding the absence, informing the bench that the prior hearing had fallen on a public holiday when the designated centres where the victims were scheduled to depose remained closed. He further apprised the bench that one of the victims was bedridden with dengue. Addressing these submissions, the Chief Justice remarked that victims cannot be expected to appear when hearings coincide with public holidays, while instructing the authorities to ensure that at least one of the two witnesses is present for examination on the upcoming hearing date.\n\nState Duty on Witness Protection and Bail Re-examination\nIn response to the prosecution's argument that no witness would testify if the accused remain at large, the Chief Justice affirmed that safeguarding witnesses remains an institutional obligation resting squarely with the authorities. The bench underscored that witness protection is a responsibility the administration must deliver on without excuses. CJI Kant added that the court would scrutinise the question of bail if there is any indication that the accused are misusing their liberty. The bench further observed that it would be appropriate to decide the bail cancellation petitions once the examination of both victim-witnesses has concluded.\n\nBroader Oversight of Manipur Ethnic Clashes\nThe latest hearing forms part of the Supreme Court's broader ongoing monitoring of legal proceedings emerging from the ethnic strife that erupted in Manipur in 2023. On September 17, the same bench had expressed sharp concern regarding fatalities reported inside relief centres housing internally displaced persons. The judges had directed the Manipur chief secretary to report back on the concrete measures initiated to investigate those deaths, pursue criminal accountability, and secure the living conditions of camp residents.\n\nAdditionally, the apex court had advised the state governments of Manipur and Assam along with relevant authorities to explore establishing two dedicated special trial courts to exclusively handle cases probed by the CBI and the National Investigation Agency linked to the unrest. The ethnic violence initially broke out on May 3, 2023, following a tribal solidarity procession organised in opposition to the Meitei community's demand for Scheduled Tribe classification. Since then, hundreds of individuals have lost their lives and thousands more have been displaced from their homes.\n\nWhat this means for you\nThis judicial directive establishes stringent accountability for prosecuting agencies to guarantee witness safety and expedite trials in high-profile criminal matters.\n\n• Across India: The ruling reinforces the legal precedent that safeguarding witnesses in vulnerable and violent crimes is an inescapable duty of law enforcement agencies. It assures citizens involved in sensitive litigation that courts will not tolerate procedural delays or intimidation tactics that compromise testimony.\n• In Manipur: For survivors and displaced victims living in the conflict-hit region, this order provides judicial reassurance that their personal hardships like health emergencies and local closures will be acknowledged. Crucially, keeping the bail decision pending until testimonies are recorded shields witnesses from potential coercion during their depositions.\n• Legal Procedure: The mandate pushes trial courts to adhere strictly to scheduled hearings and prevent prosecution bottlenecks across complex trials involving numerous witnesses. The CBI is now compelled to coordinate closely with local infrastructure to facilitate depositions on specified dates.\n• Protective Measures: Enforcement bodies must now actively deploy comprehensive protective frameworks for victims testifying against accused persons who have secured bail. Any infraction or misuse of bail liberties by the accused will prompt immediate judicial scrutiny and potential revocation.\n\nWhy this happened\nThis judicial intervention occurred after the key victim-witnesses were unable to depose on a previously scheduled date while the CBI pushed for the revocation of bail granted to two accused.\n\n• Grounds for Prior Non-Appearance: The previous hearing coincided with an official public holiday that left the designated deposition centres shuttered, while one of the victims was incapacitated by dengue fever. These practical factors prevented the two crucial witnesses from appearing before the trial court.\n• Prosecution Concerns on Bail: The CBI petitioned the apex court to cancel the bail granted to two accused persons on grounds that their release creates severe intimidation for the victims. The agency contended that survivors of extreme trauma would hesitate to testify if the perpetrators remain at large.\n• Disputes Over Trial Pace: Defence counsel argued that the prosecuting agency had not conducted the trial with adequate urgency given that there are roughly 30 witnesses and proceedings are still in their second phase. This prompted the three-judge bench to intervene and streamline the procedural timeline.\n• Underlying Conflict Background: The case originates from the widespread ethnic violence that erupted in Manipur on May 3, 2023, following a tribal solidarity demonstration opposing Scheduled Tribe status for the Meitei community. The Supreme Court has maintained ongoing administrative and judicial oversight over major crimes linked to those clashes.\n\nQuestions & Answers\n\n1. What specific directions did the Supreme Court issue to the CBI and the trial court?\nThe Supreme Court directed them to ensure that two key victim-witnesses appear for examination and that the trial moves forward expeditiously.\n\n2. Which bench presided over this hearing?\nThe matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana.\n\n3. Why were the victim-witnesses unable to appear during the earlier hearing?\nThe previous date fell on a public holiday causing deposition centres to be closed, and one of the victims was suffering from dengue.\n\n4. What argument did the CBI make to seek cancellation of the accused persons' bail?\nThe CBI argued that the accused being out on bail could adversely affect the witnesses' willingness to depose.\n\n5. What did the Chief Justice observe regarding witness protection?\nThe Chief Justice stated that protecting witnesses is an obligation resting entirely with the authorities.\n\n6. When will the Supreme Court take up the pleas to cancel the accused's bail?\nThe bench indicated that it would be appropriate to consider the bail cancellation pleas once both key victim-witnesses have been examined.\n\n7. How many witnesses are involved in this case according to the defence?\nCounsel for one of the accused stated that there are around 30 witnesses and proceedings are currently at the second stage.\n\n8. When did the ethnic violence in Manipur originally begin?\nEthnic violence broke out in Manipur on May 3, 2023, following a tribal solidarity march opposing the Meitei community's demand for Scheduled Tribe status.",
  "url": "https://trendkia.com/en/manipur/manipur-yauna-hinsa-mamale-men-supreme-court-ki-cbi-ko-do-mukhya-gavahon-ki-gavahi-taya-tarikhon-para-karane-ki-sakhta-hidayata-43378",
  "category": "Manipur",
  "publishedAt": "2026-10-05",
  "tags": [
    "Manipur Violence",
    "Supreme Court",
    "CBI",
    "Sexual Assault Case",
    "CJI Surya Kant",
    "Witness Protection",
    "Trial Court"
  ],
  "language": "en",
  "site": "TrendKia"
}