 leader Lhunkhoson Haokip seeking transfer of an arms pilferage case from Manipur to Assam, while also staying the trial against them in the case){kind=link}
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by Kuki Revolutionary Army Chief David Hangshing and United Kuki Liberation Front (UKLF) leader Lhunkhoson Haokip seeking transfer of an arms pilferage case from Manipur to Assam, while also staying the trial against them in the case.
The orders were passed by the Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal.
The Apex Court issued notice to the National Investigation Agency, directing NIA to return the same by January 12, 2024. The case was then listed for January 11 for further hearing.
Filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the plea sought transfer of the trial from Manipur to Assam on the grounds of the recent ethnic clashes and the deteriorating law and order situation.
The national agency had framed charges under Sections 120(B) and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A charge sheet was filed in the case in 2019, in which NIA arrayed the petitioners as accused No. 10 and 11.
As per the case, firearms went missing from the 2nd Manipur Rifles in 2018 and were allegedly sold to various separatist outfits, including the Kuki Revolutionary Army and the United Kuki Liberation Front.
As per the prosecution, the petitioners were involved in a conspiracy to sell firearms to separatist outfits. While petitioner No. 1 (David Hangshing) got bail in 2019, petitioner no.2 got bail in 2022. Charges were framed against them in 2022.
Till May 3, 2023, the prosecution had examined 48 witnesses. However, the ethnic clashes in Manipur hampered the trial’s progress. The case was adjourned multiple times due to the prevailing law and order situation in the state.
The petitioners expressed concern over visiting Imphal to attend the trial, stating that since the place was dominated by another community, it was not safe for them to visit it.
The petitioners sought an assurance of safety and a more accessible, secure and transparent legal process.
(Case title: David Hangshing vs NIA)