Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020002952025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : AB/19/2025 SHRI INALO ZHIMOMI S/O SH. EDWARD ZHIMOMI, R/O DIPHUPAR 'B' VILLAGE, CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND 797103 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY LD. PROSECUTOR, GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND 797001 Advocate for the Petitioner : S BORGOHAIN, ZULUMEREN M JAMIR,WATITEMJEN JAMIR,TONGPOK Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 21.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland. 2. This a Bail Application under Section 482 of the BNSS praying for Anticipatory Bail in connection with West P.S Case No. 40/2025 registered under Section 316(4)(5/337/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged against him as well as two (2) others alleging that an amount of Rs. 14,35,000/- was found to be missing in respect of cash being deposited by different accused persons in connection with bail in pending criminal cases. At the relevant time, the petitioner was the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur. The FIR also reveals that a verification of the record was done and it was found that entries were made between gaps of other entries in the cash register showing deposit of cash bill amount but actual deposits were not made and simply entries were there. In the said FIR, three persons were accused of committing the alleged offense, one being the petitioner. 3. Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Page No.# 3/8 petitioner while working as the CJM had intimated the Portfolio Judge of the Gauhati High Court for the State of Nagaland about the issue of depositing the cash received in bail matters in the account in a bank. It is normal procedure, under the High Court Rules that cash received in respect of bail should be deposited in the Treasury under the respective head of account. However, in the State of Nagaland, the said procedure is not followed and the cash received on bails are deposited in the account maintained in a bank. He also submits that in view of the said complaint, necessary directions were passed and in non-compliance of the same, actions were also directed to be taken. However, later the issue for which the petitioner raised objections, he was himself entangled in the issued at hand. 4. The learned counsel further states that an Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and during the enquiry, the petitioner was suspended and was transferred as a District & Sessions Judge, Mon and by the same order, the petitioner was compulsory retired, which the petitioner has challenged before the respective Courts and the matter is pending. Mr. S. Borgohain submitted that it is during the said enquiry, an FIR was lodged against him, which was stated above. He submits that the petitioner has no role in taking the cash which is submitted by the bailer. He only endorses the same in the register. As such, he has no connection with the same. Further, he also states that Page No.# 4/8 there is nothing on record as to in which account the cash is deposited and that it is not his account and he has no connection with the missing of the cash from the said account, if any. He also placed Rule 145 of the Assam Financial Rules, which is adopted in the State of Nagaland and which provides that while the cash book or the impressed account is closed, both the relieving officer and the relieved officer puts a note on it, showing the cash and impress balance and the number of unused cheques and it also provides that the relieving officer on transfer being completed should bring into notice anything which is found irregular or objectionable in the conduct of the business. It is also provided that the relieving officer should examine the accounts, count the cash, inspect the stores etc., in order to see the accuracy of the returns and that he should also describe the state of the records. 5. Mr. S. Borgohain states that there has been no stipulation on the said accounts which demonstrate that there was any irregularity in the part of the petitioner. He also states that he has annexed in the bail application the guidelines to be followed when complaints are received against the members of sub-ordinate judiciary wherein, it is stated that when a complaint is received, the same should be accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit and the same should be examined by a competent authority and that the authenticity of the complaint should be duly Page No.# 5/8 ascertained and steps to be taken only after the satisfaction of the competent authority. The learned counsel submits that none of this has been done and only on the letter of the Registrar (Vigilance), Gauhati High Court addressed to the Registrar of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, an FIR was lodged by the District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland on the direction given by the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench. 6. Mr. S. Borgohain has also placed the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.06.2025 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted pre-arrest bail till the matter is decided by the Court subject to cooperating with the investigation and in pursuant to the same, the petitioner had given his statement before the Investigating Officer. 7. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland by relying upon the Case Diary states that the allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature and there are materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. He has placed the statements of the advocates who stated that the money were given to another accused who is arrayed as such in the FIR. He also states that the case is under investigation and although the statement of the accused was recorded by the Investigating Officer, yet there may be requirement of more statements to be recorded. As such he submits that at this stage, no Page No.# 6/8 bail should be afforded to the petitioner. 8. Heard the counsels for both the parties. It is noticed that the petitioner in the year 2013 had made a representation to the Portfolio Judge of the State of Nagaland wherein he had stated that it has come to his knowledge that there was a complaint that the cash surety deposited during the tenure office of the predecessor was handed over to him and that he had misappropriated such money and that it was alleged that he and his predecessor had connived and taken the money. He as such placed before the learned Portfolio Judge to look into the issue since it has created serious doubt in his integrity. It is in the finding of Court that had he being involved in the said offence, he would not have written the same to the Hon’ble Portfolio Judge with a copy to the Registrar, Vigilance. 9. It is also noticed that an enquiry was conducted against him and the same is pending disposal by the concerned authority and that he was under compulsory retirement as has been stated above. The instant FIR was lodged after he was sent on compulsory retirement alleging that he was also involved in the handling of cash bill records during the relevant period. It is a known fact that a Judge does not handle the cash which is given by the bailer in respect of the bail cases. He puts his signature in the register showing that the cash has Page No.# 7/8 been paid in respect of the bail orders. The cash is thereafter deposited in the account as per the procedure followed in the State of Nagaland. 10. Further, vide order dated 16.06.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to cooperating to the investigation and till the case is decided by the Hon’ble High Court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was examined and he had given his statement before the Investigating Officer. As such, this Court grants the petitioner the privilege of the pre-arrest bail in the event of arrest to be made by the authority concerned on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two (2) sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Dimapur subject to the following conditions:- (1) He will cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Court as and when he is required. (2) He will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses whoever is connected with the case and (3) If he had to go some other place which is out of the jurisdiction of the CJM, Dimapur, he should inform the concerned Court as well as the I.O of the case. Page No.# 8/8 11. Petition is disposed of. Interim order dated 16.06.2025 is made absolute. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant