[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
National Investigation Agency vs Mrs. Sapam (Ongbi) Somola Devi on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Sl. No.1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cril.A. No.24 of 2019
National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi, represented by the Chief
Investigation Officer (CIO), National Investigation Agency, Branch
Office, Guwahati, Assam, Camp Office Imphal, Type VI, Quarter
G-1, Lamphel Officer Colony, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
Appellant
Vs.
Mrs. Sapam (Ongbi) Somola Devi, aged about 37 years, W/o
Sapam Basanta Singh @ Chaoba, a resident of Tera Sapam Leirak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin
No.795001.
Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For Appellant : Mr. Nongdamba Naorem, Advocate, led by
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, Senior Advocate and
Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI)
For Respondent : Mr. N . Mahendra, Advocate.
Date of Order : 11.03.2026
Page 1 of 4
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
M. Sundar (C.J.):
[1] Captioned criminal appeal is a statutory appeal (State appeal) under
Section 21 of the 'National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008)'
[hereinafter 'NIA Act' for the sake of brevity].
[2] Nucleus of the captioned appeal is Spl. Trial Case No.1 of 2017 on
the file of Special Judge (NIA), Manipur at Imphal, which is now Spl. T. NIA. 2 of
2025 on the file of NIA Special Court-II, Manipur. This case shall be referred to as
'said case' and 'NIA Special court-II, Manipur' shall be referred to as 'said NIA
court' both for the sake of convenience and clarity.
[3] The sole respondent in the captioned appeal is accused No.7 (A-7)
in the said case in said NIA court.
[4] On facts, it will suffice to write that A-7 applied for bail in said NIA
court (obviously in said case) vide Cril. Misc.(B) Case No.77 of 2019 and in and
vide order dated 31.10.2019, the said NIA court granted bail and the bail
conditions include personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) with two sureties of
like amount with a further condition that one of the sureties should be a State
Government employee drawing a salary of more than Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand).
This '31.10.2019 order of said NIA court' granting bail to A-7 shall be referred to
as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience, as NIA has filed captioned
statutory appeal assailing this bail order. Owing to the trajectory the captioned
appeal has taken today (about which there will be allusion elsewhere infra in this
order), it is not necessary to be detained by facts beyond this.
[5] In the hearing today, Mr. N. Nongdamba, learned counsel for NIA led
by Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned senior advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India
(DSGI) and Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for sole respondent are before this
Court.
[6] Captioned main criminal appeal was taken up and heard out with the
consent of afore-mentioned learned senior counsel/DSGI and learned counsel for
respondent.
[7] At the outset, it is necessary to capture the submission of learned
counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent
(A-7) has furnished sureties complying with bail conditions and is appearing
regularly in said NIA court in all hearings. It is further submitted by learned counsel
for respondent that respondent (A-7) is cooperating qua smooth conduct of the
trial. To be noted, the impugned order was made more than 6(six) years (six years
and four months, to be precise) i.e., 31.10.2019. To this submission, learned DSGI
very fairly submitted that respondent (A-7) is cooperating qua smooth conduct of
trial and there would be no difficulty in he remaining enlarged on bail as long as
he continues to extend cooperation for the trial.
[8] In the light of the afore-referred position about which there is no
disputation or contestation and further fair submission of learned DSGI that the
bail order (impugned order) can continue to operate subject only to all questions
raised by NIA in the captioned criminal appeal being left open for being canvassed
in another matter if the need arises and with a further rider that it will be open to
NIA to seek cancellation of bail if the need arises.
[9] The above scenario makes the legal drill at hand fairly simple.
[10] The sequitur is, captioned appeal is disposed of as closed vide
instant consent order, refraining from legal drill of testing impugned order and
confirming the impugned order i.e., order dated 31.10.2019 made in Cril. Misc.(B)
Case No. 77 of 2019 on the file of Special Judge (NIA) Manipur at Imphal albeit
(a) having open all questions raised by NIA in the captioned criminal appeal for
being canvassed in another matter, if the need arises, (b) leaving open the right
of NIA to seek cancellation of bail vide impugned order if it becomes necessary
however with a further rider that if such a plea is made, the same shall be dealt
with on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order.
[11] Captioned criminal appeal is disposed of as closed in the aforesaid
manner affirming the impugned order vide this consent order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
PS I : Upload forthwith
PS II : All concerned will remain bound by this order when uploaded
in the official website of High Court which is QR coded.
FR/NFR
