Manipur High Court
National Investigation Agency vs Mr. Chandam Tondon @Santosh @ Shileiba @ … on 21 May, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2026.05.22 17:10:45 +05'30'
REPORTABLE
Item No. 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRL. A. No. 30 of 2023
National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi, represented by the Chief
Investigation Officer (CIO), National Investigation Agency,
Branch Office, Imphal, Manipur Type - VI, Quarter G-1,
Lamphel Officer Colony, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Appellant
- Versus -
Mr. Chandam Tondon @Santosh @ Shileiba @ German
Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o (L) Ch. Shyam Singh of
Awang Sekmai, Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
... Respondent
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the appellant : Mr. BR Sharma, Central Government
Standing Counsel (CGSC)
For the respondent : Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, Advocate
Date of hearing : 21.05.2026
Date of judgment & order: 21.05.2026
Page 1|6
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] Captioned ‘Criminal Appeal’ (‘Crl. A.’ for the sake of brevity) is
a statutory appeal under Section 21 of ‘National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 (34 of 2008)’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘NIA Act‘ for the sake of
brevity].
[2] Nucleus of captioned appeal is Special Trial (NIA) Case No. 1
of 2020 on the file of Court of Special Judge (NIA), Manipur, now Special
Trial (NIA) Case No. 3 of 2025 on the file of District & Sessions Court, Imphal
West. This Court is informed that the District & Sessions Court, Imphal West
is a designated Court qua NIA case. This case shall be referred to as ‘said
NIA case’ and the Court concerned shall be referred to as ‘said NIA Court’
both for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
[3] The sole respondent in the captioned appeal is accused No. 8
(A-8) in the said NIA case.
[4] On facts, it will suffice to write that A-8 applied for bail in said
NIA Court (obviously in said NIA case) vide Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 96 of
2023. In and vide order dated 10.10.2023, the said NIA Court after hearing
both sides and after full contest granted bail and imposed certain bail
conditions. This 10.10.2023 order of said NIA Court granting bail to A-8
shall be referred to as ‘impugned order’ for the sake of brevity, convenience
and clarity. NIA has filed captioned statutory appeal assailing this impugned
order. Owing to the trajectory the captioned appeal has taken today in the
Page 2|6
hearing (about which there will be allusion elsewhere infra in this order) it
is not necessary to be detained further by facts. To put it differently, it is
not necessary to dilate more on facts.
[5] Mr. BR Sharma, learned ‘Central Government Standing
Counsel’ (‘CGSC’ for the sake of convenience) and Mr. Ch. Robinchandra,
learned counsel for sole respondent are before this Court.
[6] Captioned main criminal appeal was taken up and heard out
with the consent of aforementioned learned CGSC for NIA and learned
counsel for respondent.
[7] At the outset, though the learned counsel for appellant has
first right of audience, it is imperative to capture the submission of learned
counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for respondent (A-8 in the said NIA
Court) submits that the respondent has complied with all bail conditions qua
impugned order, he is appearing regularly in the said NIA Court in said NIA
case in all hearings. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
respondent that respondent (A-8) is cooperating with said NIA Court for
smooth conduct of Trial.
[8] To be noted, the impugned order was made nearly 2 (two)
years and 7 (seven) months ago (10.10.2023 to be precise). A perusal of
E- Court website of said NIA Court brings to light that there have been many
listings post impugned order and there is nothing to demonstrate that
respondent (A-8) has not appeared in any of the hearings.
[9] Be that as it may, learned NIA counsel i.e., learned CGSC for
Page 3|6
appellant Mr. BR Sharma very fairly submitted that it is true and correct that
respondent (A-8) is cooperating qua smooth conduct of Trial after
complying with all bail conditions imposed by impugned order and there
would be no difficulty in he remaining enlarged on bail as long as he
continues to extend cooperation for the Trial.
[10] This Court is informed by learned counsel on both sides that
Trial has since commenced in the said NIA case in said NIA Court,
examination of prosecution witnesses is under way, the case was last listed
on 07.05.2026 and it now stands over to 21.05.2026.
[11] In the light of the afore-referred position, there is no
disputation or contestation in the captioned Crl.A. The fair submission of
learned CGSC for NIA i.e., learned CGSC for appellant that the bail order
(impugned order) can continue is recorded. Learned NIA counsel makes a
further request that all questions raised by NIA in the captioned Crl. A. may
please be left open for being canvassed in another matter if need arises.
Learned counsel for NIA submits that A-8 (respondent) can remain enlarged
on bail but requests that it may be made clear that it would be open to NIA
to seek cancellation of bail qua respondent (A-8) if the need arises/if there
are change of circumstances.
[12] The above scenario makes the task of making a closure order
in captioned Crl.A. at hand fairly simple.
[13] The sequitur is, captioned appeal is disposed of as closed vide
instant consent order, refraining from the legal drill of testing the impugned
Page 4|6
order on merits. To put it differently, the impugned order i.e., order
10.10.2023 made in Criminal Misc. (B) Case No. 96 of 2023 on the file of
Court of Special Judge (NIA), Manipur is confirmed by consent {without
testing it on merits} albeit (a) leaving open all questions raised by NIA as
well as the respondent in the captioned criminal appeal for being canvassed
in another matter if need arises; (b) leaving open the right of NIA to seek
cancellation of bail vide impugned order if the need arises/if there is change
of circumstances and preserving the rights of respondent to resist the same
(if such a scenario unfurls) and (c) making it clear that the said NIA Court
shall now proceed with Trial in Special Trial (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2020 on
the file of Court of Special Judge (NIA), Manipur, now Special Trial (NIA)
Case No. 3 of 2025 on the file of District & Sessions Court, Imphal West. on
its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant consent
order.
[14] Captioned criminal appeal is disposed of as closed in the
aforesaid manner affirming the impugned bail order (albeit with afore
referred preservation of rights of both sides and observations set out supra),
vide instant consent order. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
P.S. I : Upload forthwith.
Page 5|6
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High
Court website inter alia as the same is QR coded.
Page 6|6
