New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to a retired Nagaland district judge who alleged “malicious prosecution” and “forced retirement” for flagging administrative issues with Nagaland district judiciary’s cash surety system for bail.
The judge – who once flagged that Nagaland’s district judiciary does not deposit the bail bond amounts or cash surety in the respective District Treasury – is now accused in a case of misappropriation of Rs 14.35 lakh in cash for bail sureties when he was Principle and District Judge for Mon district.
A police case had been filed against Inalo Zhimomi and two others based on the complaint by the current Principle and District Judge alleging the misappropriation of cash.
This was after he had been released, forcibly, he has alleged, from service by the state following an order by the Kohima bench of the Gauhati High Court.
That court order was challenged in the Gauhati High Court, which refused interim relief without going into the merits of the case. Zhimomi then moved the Supreme Court against that May 29 order.
Earlier, the Principal and District Judge for Dimapur district had given a written statement, on the direction of the Gauhati High Court, that a sum of Rs 14.35 lakh was found to be missing.
This was cash deposited for sureties in connection with pending criminal cases.
Unlike other states, Nagaland does not have a bail bond system.
Instead, cash must be deposited for payment of sureties listed in bail orders.
The missing cash includes bail amounts from 29 cases that were entered in the register of 2024.
Zhimomi has now moved the Supreme Court claiming that when he was Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kohima, he wrote to the Gauhati High Court in September 2013 to flag this very issue.
In his plea to the top court, the retired judge called his enforced retirement “illegal” and alleged violations of the Constitution, including the registration of a criminal case without following the convention established by the Supreme Court in a 1991 case.
That verdict had mandated prior consultation with the Chief Justice before initiating criminal proceedings against judicial officers from that state. He further alleged that post-retirement disciplinary proceedings contradicted the state’s Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Zhimomi told the top court the alleged amount of missing cash was a symptom of “systemic issues in Nagaland’s subordinate judiciary”, where bail amounts are not deposited correctly.
He gave the example of neighbouring Assam and said the charges against him represented “a clear pattern of malicious prosecution evidenced by the sequence of suspension, compulsory retirement, post-retirement disciplinary proceedings, and, finally, a criminal case against a judicial officer who had earlier flagged concerns about the cash surety system”.
That the High Court did not examine flagged issues with the deposit of bail money, i.e., the amount is not deposited with the Treasury of the concerned district, “clearly demonstrates the issue (on the administrative side) has not been properly looked into by the High Court”, he said.
At the end of the hearing, the Supreme Court granted Zhimomi some relief.
However, the case will continue to be heard by the High Court.
Zhimomi was represented by Advocate on Record Aditya Giri and Senior Counsel S Borgoahain.
NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.
