Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-Nagaland Judge Accused Of Misappropriating Bail Surety Amounts

The Supreme Court on June 16 granted anticipatory bail to Inalo Zhimomi, former Principal District and Session Judge of the Dimapur District & Session Court, in a case over allegations of misappropriating the bond surety amount.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan granted anticipatory bail subject to the petitioner cooperating with the investigation till the matter is finally decided by the Gauhati High Court.  

It is the case of the prosecution that the former judge misappropriated Rs. 14,35,000 of the cash bail deposited by the accused persons in connection with 28 pending criminal cases. The missing cash bail was entered in the cash bail register for the year 2024. Pursuant to this, a first information report under Sections 316(4)/(5), 377 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered through a letter from the current Principal District Judge, Dimapur under the directions of the High Court.

Whereas, the petitioner's case is that when he was posted as a Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima, he made a representation vide letter in 2013 to the then Protocol Judge of the High Court in which he flagged administrative issues, including the issue of cash surety. 

The petitioner flagged that, unlike the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court and the Subordinate Judiciary in Assam, the Subordinate Judiciary in Nagaland does not deposit the bail bond amount or cash surety in the respective District Treasury. This is an issue of "serious concern" and he alleged that the administrative side of the high court has not properly looked into this issue.

Now, he alleges that he has been made an accused of misappropriating the money. He has argued that when he was posted as District and Session Judge in the District of Mon, in 2024, he was put under suspension and he was asked to make a representation as to why the penalty under the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, shall not be imposed upon him. 

The petitioner states that through an order issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) on March 25, he was given compulsory retirement under Rule 20(2) of the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006. Subsequent to this, another order was passed revoking his suspension and ordering him to handover the charge of his office. 

The petitioner has challenged the entire process as devoid of principles of natural justice and also statutory rights and laws laid down by the Supreme Court before the Gauhati High Court through a writ petition, which is pending adjudication.

It is also the case of the petitioner that during the writ petition, two orders were issued by the Registrar (Vigilance), Gauhati High Court, appointing an Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has made a representation to the Inquiry Office questioning the due process of how an enquiry can be conducted after the employee has been given a compulsory requirement. 

On May 29, the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, rejected the petitioner's plea for pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Siddhartha Borgohain, referred to the K. Veeraswami v. UOI (1991) and questioned how a criminal case can be registered against a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Section 154 CrPC unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted. 

The petitioner has also raised the issue that while an FIR was supplied to him, the letter of the Principal District Judge and the copy of the bail register have not been supplied to him. Questions of law including whether the interim order rejected anticipatory bail violating the settled position of law has been raised. 

Case Details: SHRI INALO ZHIMOMI v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND

Click Here To Read Order 

The SLP has been filed through AoR Aditya Giri, AoR for the petitioner