Manipur High Court
National Investigation Agency vs Thangjam Achou Singh @ Rajesh @ Thoujal on 24 March, 2026
Author: A. Bimol Singh
Bench: A. Bimol Singh
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH REPORTABLE
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.03.25
02:05:26 +05'30'
Item No. 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRL. A. No. 16 of 2025
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 - IV, Quarter G-1,
Lamphel Officer Colony, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Appellant
- Versus -
Thangjam Achou Singh @ Rajesh @ Thoujal, aged about
28 years, S/o Th. Meghachandra Singh of Pourabi Awang
Leikai, P.O. Sawombung & P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
... Respondent
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH
For the appellant : Mr. BR Sharma, Central Government
Standing Counsel (CGSC)
For the respondent : Mr. Th. Jugindro, Advocate
Date of hearing : 24.03.2026
Date of judgment & order: 24.03.2026
Page 1|5
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 ‘said NIA
Court’ both for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
[3] The sole respondent in the captioned appeal is accused No. 7
(A-7) in the said NIA case.
[4] On facts, it will suffice to write that A-7 applied for bail in said
NIA Court (obviously in said NIA case) vide Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 97 of
2023. In and vide order dated 24.11.2023, the said NIA Court after hearing
both sides and after full contest granted bail and imposed certain bail
conditions. This 24.11.2023 order of said NIA Court granting bail to A-7
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 been taken today
Page 2|5
in the 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. Th. Jugindro, 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 the respondent. Learned counsel for respondent (A-7 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 qua
said NIA case in all hearings. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
respondent that respondent (A-7) is cooperating qua smooth conduct of
Trial.
[8] To be noted, the impugned order was made nearly 2 (two)
years and 4 (four) months ago (24.11.2023 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-7) has not appeared in any of the hearings.
[9] Be that as it may, learned NIA counsel i.e. learned CGSC for
appellant Mr. BR Sharma very fairly submitted that it is true and correct that
respondent (A-7) is cooperating qua smooth conduct of Trial after
Page 3|5
complying with all bail conditions qua 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 witness is under way, the case was last listed
on 16.03.2026 and it now stands over to 13.04.2026.
[11] In the light of the afore-referred position, i.e. there is no
disputation or contestation and further fair submission of learned CGSC for
NIA i.e. learned CGSC for appellant that the bail order (impugned order)
can continue and makes a further request that all questions raised by NIA
in the captioned Crl. A. left open for being canvassed in another matter if
need arises. Learned counsel for NIA submits that A-7 (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-7) if the need
arises/if there are change of circumstances.
[12] The above scenario makes legal drill at hand fairly simple.
[13] The sequitur is, captioned appeal is disposed of as closed vide
instant consent order, refraining from legal drill of testing the impugned
order. To put it differently, the impugned order i.e. order 24.11.2023 made
in Criminal Misc. (B) Case No. 97 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 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
Page 4|5
need arises/if there is change of circumstances and (c) making it clear that
the said NIA Court shall now proceed with Trial in Special Trial (NIA) Case
No. 3 of 2025 on its own merits 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, vide instant consent
order. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Bipin P.S. I : Upload forthwith. 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 5|5
