Supreme Court grants relief to former Nagaland judge accused of misappropriating bail surety

The Supreme Court on June 16 granted anticipatory bail to Inalo Zhimomi, a former Principal District and Sessions Judge of Dimapur, in connection with a criminal case of misappropriation of over ₹14 lakh in cash surety deposits [Inalo Zhimomi vs. The State of Nagaland]..A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the order after taking note of the fact that the Gauhati High Court had not yet concluded its hearing on Zhimomi’s anticipatory bail plea and had called for the case diary for further examination.“We have perused the impugned order passed by the High Court. Since the High Court has deemed it appropriate to call for the case diary for further examination, we are of the view that the petitioner should be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail till the matter is decided by the High Court,” the top court ordered..Advocate Siddhartha Borgohain, representing Zhimomi, told the Court that the procedure for handling bail surety in Nagaland is structurally different from the system followed in other States. He submitted that the cash sureties are deposited not in the district treasury but in a particular court account.“In Nagaland, it is very surprising. Normally in bail matters, the court gives the bail bonds. Against the amount of the bond, the bailers deposit FDs and give them to the Court. The court staff then deposit it in the state treasury. In the case of Nagaland, that is not the case. This issue was even flagged by me in 2013 when I was CJM,” Borgohain submitted.The bench then sought clarification on the route followed for the funds.“But where does the money go?” the Court asked.“It goes into some account,” Borgohain responded.“Which account?” the bench pressed.“To a particular court account,” Borgohain replied.The Court noted that the allegation was of ₹14.35 lakh not being deposited in the treasury and sought evidence of deposit.“Please show us that it has been deposited. The allegation is that ₹14.35 lakhs which has been collected has not been deposited. Your admitted position is that it has not been deposited,” the bench observed.Borgohain claimed that the money was in fact deposited and that proof had been handed over at the time of the judge’s transfer from Dimapur.“When I was transferred from Dimapur, the entire amount’s deposit slip was given,” he said..The case stemmed from an FIR registered under Sections 316(4)/(5) (criminal breach of trust), 337 (forgery of court record) and 3(5) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following directions of the Gauhati High Court. The complaint alleged that ₹14.35 lakh in bail amounts related to 28 criminal cases had been collected by the judge but not deposited. The FIR was based on a letter by the current Principal District Judge of Dimapur.Zhimomi challenged the allegations, asserting that he had raised systemic concerns over cash surety procedures as early as 2013. According to his writ petition pending before the Gauhati High Court, he had, during his tenure as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kohima, written to the Protocol Judge of the High Court highlighting irregular practices in handling bail bond amounts.He contended that the practice of failing to deposit surety amounts in the district treasury exists across Nagaland and that the administrative side of the High Court had not taken appropriate remedial measures..Zhimomi was later posted as District and Sessions Judge at Mon, where he was suspended and issued a show-cause notice under the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. On March 25, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 20(2) of the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006.He has since challenged the disciplinary process as being violative of natural justice and Supreme Court precedents. During the pendency of his writ petition, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Registrar (Vigilance), prompting Zhimomi to raise procedural objections about the legality of conducting disciplinary inquiry after compulsory retirement.His application for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected by the Gauhati High Court on May 29. In the Supreme Court, he placed reliance on the 1991 judgment in K Veeraswami v. Union of India to assert that criminal prosecution against a judge could not proceed without the prior consultation of the Chief Justice of India.Zhimomi further submitted that while a copy of the FIR was supplied to him, other crucial documents such as the letter by the Principal District Judge and the bail register were withheld..The Supreme Court has now granted him protection from arrest, directing that he cooperate with the investigation until the High Court disposes of his plea..[Read Order]