Allowed¶19

Amram S Arkha v. State of Nagaland

Gauhati HC20 Jul 2025AB/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench; anticipatory/pre-arrest bail; AB/17/2025; GAHC020002952025; Shamima Jahan, J.; Section 482 BNSS; sections 316(4)(5)/337/3(5) BNSS 2023; West Police Station No. 0040/2025; misappropriation of bail-deposit cash Rs. 14,35,000; employee of District & Sessions Judge court; Dimapur Nagaland; cooperation with I.O.; interim bail; bail bond Rs. 20,000 with two local sureties; CJM Dimapur jurisdiction condition; decided 21-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail in the event of arrest, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, subject to conditions of continued cooperation, non-tampering with evidence/witnesses, and not leaving the jurisdiction of CJM, Dimapur without leave. ¶19

Amram S Arkha Vs State of Nagaland — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with West Police Station No. 0040/2025, given the allegation that he was involved in the missing cash of Rs. 14,35,000 deposited by accused persons for bails, in light of his claimed cooperation with the investigation.

¶13

Court's answer

Since the petitioner co-operated fully with the I.O. - appearing and giving his statement even before obtaining an interim bail order - he may be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Pre-arrest bail is conditional on the petitioner furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM.

¶19

Key takeaways

Condition (i): the petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency and appear before the Court as and when called for.ratio¶20
Condition (ii): the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected to the case.ratio¶21
Condition (iii): the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the CJM, Dimapur without the leave of that Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail - S. 482 BNSS - Petitioner, an employee in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, sought anticipatory bail in West Police Station No. 0040/2025 under sections 316(4)(5)/337/3(5) of the BNSS, 2023, arising from missing cash of Rs. 14,35,000/- deposited by accused persons for bails in pending criminal cases. Held: the petitioner had approached the I.O. and given his statement the very next day after liberty was granted on 28.05.2025, even before obtaining interim bail, which the Court noted was unusual for an accused; since the petitioner co-operated fully with the I.O., he may be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of arrest, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, subject to conditions that he co-operate with the Investigating Agency and appear as and when called, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and not leave the jurisdiction of the CJM, Dimapur without leave. Application disposed of (Gauhati HC, Kohima Bench; Shamima Jahan, J.; 21-07-2025).

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC020002952025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶4

Linked Case : AB/17/2025

¶5

AMRAM S ARKHA R/O NEW COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND

¶8

-----------Advocate for : MOA JAMIR Advocate for : P.P NAGALAND appearing for STATE OF NAGALAND

¶9

BEFORE

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 21-07-2025

¶13

This application has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of BNSS praying for pre-arrest bail in connection with the West Police Station No. 0040/2025 under section 316(4) (5)/337/3(5) of the BNSS, 2023.

¶14

The FIR report reveals that the petitioner, who was an employee in the Court of District & Sessions Judge was allegedly

¶15

Page No.# 2/3 found involved in missing of cash of Rs. 14,35,000/- in respect of the cash deposited by different accused person in connection with bails in pending criminal cases. The FIR further reveals that the records were verified and upon verification, entries were found, made between the gaps of other entries showing deposit of cash amount without however making the actual deposits. The petitioner was alleged to have been involved in handling of the cash and the FIR was registered against him.

¶16

Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner was given liberty to approach the I.O and to co-operate with the investigation vide order dated 28.05.2025 by this Court and in compliance of the same, he approached the I.O and he gave his statement on the next day itself i.e. 29.05.2025. He had also stated that by a subsequent order dated 06.05.2025, the petitioner was released on the interim bail. As such, he submits that the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation and he may be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned P.P. submits and by placing the CD, states that the same reveals that it was the petitioner namely, Amram S. Arkha who had actually taken the amount from the bailers in different applications and the same was stated by the Advocates whose statements were recorded by the I.O as well as by the petitioner himself. As such, he prayed that the money which was received by the petitioner was found missing and that he was involved and no bail should be granted to the petitioner.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsels. It is apparent from the record of the case that even without obtaining an interim bail order,

¶19

Page No.# 3/3 the petitioner had gone and given his statement before the I.O. On 28.05.2025, he was given liberty to appear before the Officer-inCharge and to co-operate and on the next date itself he went and gave his statement to the Officer-in-Charge, which is little unusual for an accused person to do the same. He had further stated before the Officer-in-Charge that he receives the money and gives the same to the other co-accused for depositing it in the bank. He had also stated that since only Rs. 50,000/- per day could be accepted by the bank in a day, the other co-accused had requested him to keep the money and that he had handed over the remaining amount to him for onward deposition in the bank. Since the petitioner has co-operated with the I.O fully, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest. The petitioner shall furnish a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM with the following terms and conditions;

¶20

(i) He will co-operate with the Investigating Agency and would appear before the Court as and when called for.

¶21

(ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses whoever is connected to the instant case.

¶22

(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the CJM, Dimapur without the leave of the said Court.

¶23

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

JUDGE