NEW DELHI, Dec 5: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the directions issued by the Manipur High Court in October 2023, which had instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to trace and produce Timothi Changsang, a Northeast child-home administrator convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, within three months. Changsang, who was convicted for raping minor girls, has been absconding since 2018 and has yet to be located.

The CBI filed a criminal appeal against the order, which was based on newspaper reports, leading the High Court to take suo-motu cognizance of the matter. The CBI argued that the direction was issued without being made a party to the case and sought to be relieved of the responsibility. The High Court had initially directed the CBI to trace Changsang and present him before the court within three months. The court also rejected the CBI’s request to be impleaded as a party in the matter, granting them eight weeks to comply with the order.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court’s directions. The bench, consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh, stated that the Manipur High Court’s order was “unnecessary” and noted that the state government had already formed special teams to trace the absconding convict. The Court acknowledged the CBI’s concern, pointing out that the agency’s primary role is to investigate, not to trace absconding individuals.

The Court further added that if needed, the state government could approach the central government for additional assistance in locating Changsang. During the proceedings, the CBI’s counsel emphasized that the state’s affidavit indicated the convict was last seen leaving the airport, and despite best efforts by the state, Changsang had not been located.

The Manipur State’s counsel assured the Court that special teams, monitored by the Director General of Police (DGP), were actively working on the case. Justice Nagarathna remarked, “Where will you go all over the world?” emphasizing the extensive efforts already made to trace the convict.

The Manipur High Court had earlier upheld the convict’s sentence, and this ruling was later confirmed by the Supreme Court. The state’s continued efforts to trace the absconding convict were supported, but the deadline imposed by the High Court was dismissed. The convict’s sentence remains upheld.