In a recent development, the Supreme Court’s bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), on a plea filed by an accused challenging prolonged incarceration and denial of bail in connection with an alleged transnational conspiracy behind the Manipur violence.

The plea highlights that although a charge-sheet has been filed, the trial has not progressed, leaving the accused in custody for nearly two years. It was also argued that while co-accused have been granted bail, parity was denied in this instance.

Background:

The allegations pertain to a conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by Myanmar-based terror outfits to “wage war” against the Government of India, exploiting the ethnic unrest in Manipur. The accused is said to be a senior member of the banned People’s Liberation Army under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,(UAPA), with a past record of arrest under the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) case. KCP is a banned militant organization in Manipur.

The accused was allegedly apprehended in September 2023, with weapons identified as looted from state armouries and has been linked to training activities for the Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF) which is a proscribed militant group in northeastern India that seeks to establish an independent state of Manipur.

Initially booked by Manipur Police under a combination of IPC, Arms Act, UAPA and the Official Secrets Act, the matter was later taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA),which registered its own case under corresponding provisions.

Bail granted in the Manipur FIR was followed by immediate re-arrest under the NIA case, resulting in continued custody. Earlier, the Special Court and subsequently the Delhi High Court refused bail, noting the seriousness of the allegations.

The Supreme Court’s present intervention however, limited to seeking the NIA’s response on trial status. Upon hearing the counsel the Supreme Court made the following order,

“The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the charge-sheet having been filed, the trial has not proceeded and the petitioner is languishing in jail for the last two years. Issue notice only to ascertain the status of the trial, returnable within four weeks.”

Case Details: MOIRANGTHEM ANAND SINGH Versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA), Diary No. 46649-2025