Sl. No. 27 & 28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Crl. A. No. 10 of 2025 With MC (Crl. A.) No. 13 of 2025 The Officer-in-charge, Imphal Police Station, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West-District, Manipur – 795001. Appellant Vs. 1. Mrs. Lhaineikim Lhouvum @ Kikim, aged about 31 years, W/o M. Thangmang Haokip, resident of Molnom Village, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur, Pin No. 795128. 2. Mark Thangmang Haokip, aged about 39 years, S/o Limkhosei Haokip, resident of Molnom Village, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur Pin No. 795128. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH (ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ) 09.03.2026 [1] Captioned Criminal Appeal (Crl. A) is a statutory appeal under Section 21 of the ‘National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008’) (hereinafter, ‘NIA Act’ for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) and captioned Miscellaneous Case (MC) thereat is one seeking KABOR AMBAM SANDEE P SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2026.03.10 15:53:52 +05'30' stay of operation of the impugned order. To be noted, ‘impugned order’ is ‘order dated 15.04.2025 in Cril Misc. (B) Case No. 03 of 2023’ made by ‘the Court of Special Judge (NIA) Imphal west’ (hereinafter ‘said NIA Court’ for the sake of convenience) granting bail to R-2 before us. To be noted, ‘R-2’ is an abbreviation for ‘2nd respondent’ and similar abbreviation will be used with regard to ‘1st respondent’ also. It is also to be noted that R-1 is spouse of R-2 and R-1 moved said NIA Court. [2] In the hearing today, Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for appellant is before us on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform and Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for two respondents is before us in the physical court. [3] Main Crl. A. was taken up with the consent of learned prosecutor and learned counsel for respondents. [4] Learned counsel on both sides submit in unison and in one voice that afore-referred impugned order was made by said NIA Court prior to framing of charges but thereafter charges were framed on 02.02.2026, as charges framed did not pertain to provisions under Chapter IV and VI of the ‘Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967)’ (hereinafter ‘UAPA’ for the sake of brevity and convenience), R-2 moved another bail application in said NIA Court being criminal Misc. (B) case No. 63 of 2026 in Special Trial No. 10 of 2022, said NIA Court vide order dated 26.02.2026, after full contest i.e., after hearing both sides has granted bail. It is also submitted by both sides without any disputation or contestation that R-2 has since been enlarged on bail. [5] In the light of the narrative thus far, both sides submit without any disputation or contestation that captioned Crl. A. and captioned MC thereat have become infructuous. [6] Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned Crl. A. and captioned MC thereat are dismissed as having become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep FR/NFR