Retired judge gets SC bail in cash surety case

Supreme Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to a retired district judge from Nagaland who alleged “malicious prosecution” and “forced retirement” after raising concerns about administrative lapses in the state judiciary’s cash surety system for bail, according to an NDTV report.
The retired judge, who once flagged that bail bond amounts or cash sureties were not being deposited in the respective District Treasury, now stands accused of misappropriating Rs.14.35 lakh during his tenure as Principal District and Sessions Judge in Mon district.
A police case was filed against him and two others based on a complaint by the current Principal District Judge, following his removal from service—an action the retired judge claims was enforced, citing an earlier order of Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
That order, which facilitated his removal, was later challenged by him before the Gauhati High Court, which refused to grant interim relief. He subsequently moved the Supreme Court against the May 29 order.
Earlier, the Principal District Judge of Dimapur had submitted a written statement to the High Court, confirming that Rs. 14.35 lakh in cash sureties related to 29 pending criminal cases in 2024 was found missing. Unlike most states, Nagaland lacks a conventional bail bond system. Instead, cash must be deposited directly for sureties named in bail orders.
In his plea before the apex court, the retired judge described his removal as “illegal” and argued that initiating criminal proceedings against a judicial officer without prior consultation with the Chief Justice violated the Supreme Court’s 1991 ruling that safeguards judicial independence.
He further alleged that post-retirement disciplinary actions violated the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Calling the missing amount a symptom of “systemic issues in Nagaland’s subordinate judiciary,” the judge cited similar practices in Assam, claiming that his prosecution was part of a “pattern of retaliation” against those exposing institutional shortcomings. He argued that the High Court failed to address the flagged issue of bail money not being deposited in district treasuries.
Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, granted him anticipatory bail but allowed the case to continue before the High Court. He was represented by Advocate-on-Record Aditya Giri and Senior Counsel S. Borgohain.