Fake Encounter Case: CJM, Imphal West to take reference from HC

The court on taking up the final report of Pheiroijam Sanajit submitted by the CBI for hearing, observed that the case seemingly involves a conflict of laws and the matter requires a specific observation of the High Court of Manipur by making a reference.


The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West on Tuesday resolved to take reference from the High Court of Manipur to enable it to take an appropriate decision concerning the fake encounter cases pending before the court wherein prosecution sanction has been denied against accused defence personnel.

The decision was taken on examining the substantial number of fake encounter cases pending before the court wherein prosecution sanction has been denied so far.

The court on taking up the final report of Pheiroijam Sanajit submitted by the CBI for hearing, observed that the case seemingly involves a conflict of laws and the matter requires a specific observation of the High Court of Manipur by making a reference.

The court order noted that there are substantial numbers of similar cases pending before the court and other courts wherein prosecution sanction was denied against the respective accused defence personnel even in the presence of prima facie materials evidence against the accused persons.

It stated that the denial of prosecution sanction by the competent authority has become a routine matter in most of the cases where defence or paramilitary personnel are involved in alleged fake encounter cases. In all the cases, the competent authority takes the refuge of section 6 of AFSPA, 1958, it stated.

The court ordered stated that the CBI found substantial materials evidence against the accused persons (who are defence personnel) namely Girish Nair, the then Major of 19 Rajput (now retired); Rahul Bal Mishra, the then Captain of 19 Rajput; Ranbeer Singh, the then Havildar of 19 Rajput; Abhay Pratap Singh, the then Sepoy of 19 Rajput for allegedly committed of offences punishable under section 302/342/201 read with section 34 IPC.

The CBI recommended that action be taken up against the accused persons, it stated. However, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India has denied the grant of prosecution sanction, it added.

The order further stated that even the Ministry of Defence desires to drop or discontinue the trial proceedings against the accused persons by flatly denying the grant of prosecution sanction against the accused by taking the refuge of section 6 of AFSPA, 1958.

The Ministry of Defence on December 2, 2019, projected a fact situation stating that the prima facie findings of CBI against the accused persons are all wrong, and that the accused persons killed the victim Pheiroijam Sanajit in an ambush during the course of official duty in the lawful exercise of the powers conferred by law, the court stated.

First Published:Feb. 23, 2021, 8:45 p.m.

Leave a comment