Supreme Court: While considering the instant petition challenging Gauhati High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail to a former District Judge in Nagaland pertaining to alleged misappropriation of bail surety amounts, the Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, JJ., granted pre-arrest bail the accused former District Judge stating that since Gauhati High Court had deemed it appropriate to call for the case diary for further examination, the petitioner should have been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail till the matter is decided by the High Court.
Allegations of misappropriation of bail surety amount before Gauhati HC:
The petitioner had joined the Nagaland Judicial Service at Grade- III in 2005. Subsequently, he was promoted to Grade-II in 2013 and finally to Grade-I in 2018.
It had been alleged that while discharging his duties as Principal District Judge the petitioner had misappropriated Rs 14,35,000 which was allegedly deposited as bail surety. Subsequently, FIR was filed against him by the current Principal District Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland under the directions of the High Court.
It was submitted that in March 2025, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 20(20) of the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006. This was followed by an order dated 28-03-2025 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance), vide which the suspension order was revoked, and the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of his office on 31-03-2025, which he duly complied with.
The petitioner contended that he was provided only with the copy of the FIR, however, he was not provided with the copy of the cash bail register, and the letter from the High Court, which was received by the current Principal District Judge, Dimapur/the informant in this case. The petitioner further submitted that when a cash surety or bail amount is deposited by a bailor in the office, a judicial officer or District Judge is not supposed to collect the same directly. However, no such procedure is currently followed in Nagaland, and there is no practice of depositing demand drafts in the treasury after receiving cash sureties. The role of the District and Sessions Judge or the CJM is limited to signing the relevant documents; the actual receipt of the cash is the responsibility of the designated officer/staffs.
The petitioner cited K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, wherein Supreme Court held that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC against a Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted and grants approval. The petitioner contended that that although K. Veeraswami (supra) does not pertain to the higher judiciary, the same principle and spirit should apply to the subordinate judiciary, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption.
Perusing the allegations against the petitioner, the High Court in Inalo Zhimomi v. State of Nagaland1, noted that the petitioner had raised several issues including procedural lapses in the filing of the FIR, and concerns regarding the procedure adopted by the State of Nagaland, particularly in the judiciary, concerning the acceptance of cash surety.
The High Court said that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were serious and although it may be the case, that the District Judge or judicial officer was not directly involved in receiving the cash amount, the case diary will be necessary to ascertain the facts and before passing any order on bail.
Therefore, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
Perusing the afore-stated impugned order and judgment, the Court deemed it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner till the matter is decided by the High Court.
[Inalo Zhimomi v. State of Nagaland, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9032/2025, decided on 16-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Borgohain, Adv. Mr. Aditya Giri, AOR Mr. Watitemjen Jamir, Adv.
