Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Manipur · body

2026 DAILYLAW 313 (MAN)

Hanglem Thoiba Meitei v. National Investigation Agency (NIA) Imphal Branch

MC(Crl.A.)/5/2026 · 2026-02-17

Ahanthem Bimol Singh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

P a g e 1 | 2 Item No. 16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(CRL.A.) No. 5 of 2026 Hanglem Thoiba Meitei, aged about 28 years, S/o Hanglem Diben Meitei, R/o Khumujambam Meitei Leikai, Churachandpur District, A/P Phubala Relief Camp, Bishnupur District, Manipur. … Applicant - Versus - National Investigation Agency (NIA), Imphal Branch, Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004. … Respondent B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH O R D E R [M. Sundar, CJ] 18.02.2026 Captioned miscellaneous case (MC) has been filed with condonation of delay (CoD) qua 17 (seventeen) days delay in filing a statutory appeal under Section 21 of ‘National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008)’ [which shall be referred to as ‘NIA Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience]. Ms. Anandita, learned counsel on record for MC applicant is before this Court and learned counsel submits that the MC applicant has been in continuous judicial custody for a long time and also owing to intervening holidays in the Trial Court, there was delay on the part of Trial Court counsel in applying for certified copy of the impugned order and this is the reason for delay. KHOIROM BIPINCHAN DRA SINGH Digitally signed by KHOIROM BIPINCHANDRA SINGH Date: 2026.02.18 08:13:02 +05'30' P a g e 2 | 2 To be noted, the impugned order is order dated 22.12.2025 made in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 440 of 2025 on the file of Court of Special Judge, NIA, Court No. 1, Manipur and this impugned order is a bail rejection order. Issue notice. Mr. Nongdamba, learned counsel on records accepts notice for respondent NIA (National Investigation Agency) and submits that MC applicant being in custody can hardly be a reason for delay on the part of counsel in applying for certified copy and on this basis learned counsel opposed the CoD prayer. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions. The fact that holidays intervened after the impugned order is a matter of record. In this view of the matter and also taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and further fact that the statutory appeal is against a bail rejection order, this Court deems it appropriate to take a liberal view and accede to CoD prayer. To be noted, this is more so owing to the manner, the MC applicant is circumstanced. Sequitur is, prayer for condonation of delay is acceded to. Registry to process the main appeal if objections are removed and if the appeal is otherwise in order, Registry to assign a number and list the appeal before this Court. Captioned MC allowed/ ordered as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bipin