Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to retired Nagaland district judge Inalo Zhimomi, who claimed he is facing malicious prosecution and was forcibly retired after raising concerns about irregularities in the state’s bail surety system.
Authorities had booked Zhimomi and two others in a case involving the alleged misappropriation of Rs 14.35 lakh in cash bail sureties during his tenure as Principal District and Sessions Judge in Mon district. The current presiding judge in Mon district lodged the complaint, prompting the police investigation.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Zhimomi had previously flagged that district courts in Nagaland were not depositing bail amounts or cash sureties into the respective District Treasuries, a violation of standard financial protocols. Instead, cash was reportedly handled directly by court staff, raising accountability concerns.
The retired judge moved the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court’s Kohima bench refused to grant interim protection in a related case filed on May 29, where he challenged the legality of his compulsory retirement. Zhimomi alleged that the state forced him out of service without due process, following an order by the High Court, which he has now appealed.
In a written report submitted by the Principal District Judge of Dimapur, on the High Court’s directive, officials confirmed that Rs 14.35 lakh in cash sureties, linked to 29 criminal cases listed in the court’s 2024 register, had gone missing. Unlike other Indian states, Nagaland lacks a bail bond system and instead requires the deposit of cash to fulfill surety conditions ordered by the court.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Zhimomi, in his petition, argued that systemic lapses, not personal misconduct, caused the discrepancies. He pointed out that he had alerted the Gauhati High Court to these issues as far back as September 2013, while serving as the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kohima.
He further claimed that state authorities violated Supreme Court guidelines established in a 1991 judgment, which require consultation with the Chief Justice before initiating criminal proceedings against a judicial officer. Zhimomi also argued that post-retirement disciplinary actions contravened the state’s Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
In his plea, he described the criminal proceedings as part of a broader pattern of retaliation. “My suspension, forced retirement, disciplinary inquiry after retirement, and now a criminal case, all stem from my efforts to expose long-standing flaws in the cash surety system,” he told the court.
Zhimomi emphasized that the missing funds revealed deep-rooted problems within Nagaland’s lower judiciary, and not personal wrongdoing. He noted that neighboring states like Assam follow more transparent procedures involving treasury deposits for bail.
The Supreme Court, after reviewing his plea, granted anticipatory bail but clarified that the case will proceed before the High Court. The bench did not delve into the merits of the allegations but acknowledged the need to protect the petitioner from immediate arrest.
Advocate-on-Record Aditya Giri and Senior Counsel S. Borgoahain represented Zhimomi in the Supreme Court proceedings.