The Supreme Court approved anticipatory bail for Inalo Zhimomi, the ex-Principal District and Sessions Judge of Dimapur, who faces accusations of embezzling bail surety funds.
The Allegations
The court granted anticipatory bail to Inalo Zhimomi, in a case involving alleged misappropriation of cash bail amounts. Prosecutors claim that Zhimomi siphoned off ₹14.35 lakh deposited as bail surety in 28 criminal cases.
The discrepancies were recorded in the 2024 cash bail register, prompting an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following a complaint by the current Principal District Judge under the Gauhati High Court’s directions.
Zhimomi’s Defense
Zhimomi argues that he had raised concerns about procedural lapses as far back as 2013. In a letter to the then Protocol Judge of the Gauhati High Court, he highlighted that, unlike Assam, Nagaland’s subordinate judiciary did not deposit bail bonds in district treasuries, a flaw he termed a “serious concern.”
He alleges that the High Court ignored these warnings and is now unfairly targeting him.
Career Fallout
The ex-judge claims he was suspended in 2024 while posted in Mon district and later compulsorily retired under the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules.
He has challenged this decision before the Gauhati High Court, calling it a violation of natural justice. Despite his retirement, an inquiry officer was appointed, which he contends is illegal post-retirement.
After the Gauhati High Court’s Kohima Bench denied him pre-arrest bail on May 29, Zhimomi moved the Supreme Court.
His counsel, Advocate Siddhartha Borgohain, cited the K. Veeraswami v. UOI (1991) precedent, arguing that judges shouldn’t face criminal proceedings without the CJI’s consultation. He also claims key documents, like the Principal District Judge’s complaint and bail register, were withheld.
SC’s Interim Relief
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan granted anticipatory bail, directing Zhimomi to cooperate with the investigation until the High Court resolves his pending writ petition.
The case now hinges on whether due process was followed in both disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the former judge.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
