Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs National Invetigation Agency (Nia) on 25 September, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010159182025
2025:GAU-
AS:13251-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./285/2025
THANGMINLEN MATE @ LENIN MATE
S/O. DOUJANGAM MATE, R/O. H.T GAMNOMPHAI, TENGNOUPAL, SUB-
DIVISION, CHANDEL, P/O. AND P/S. MOREH, DIST. MOREH, MANIPUR.
VERSUS
NATIONAL INVETIGATION AGENCY (NIA)
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A BASUMATARY, MR N AHMED,MR. M R
CHOUDHURY,MR. N J DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : , SC, NIA
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Date of hearing : 19.09.2025 Date of judgment : 25.09.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner.
Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI, appearing for the Page No.# 2/16 respondents.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order of rejection of bail dated 25/06/2025 by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, in FI.R RC-06/2024/NIA/IMP, which was earlier numbered as FIR No. 26(1)/2024 in the Moreh Police Station, Manipur.
3. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that the petitioner had been initially arrested by the NIA on 19/05/2025 in Silchar Police Station, Cachar, Assam, in connection with FIR No. 26(1)/2024 registered in the Moreh Police Station, Manipur, which was later renumbered as FIR RC-05/2024/NIA/IMP under Sections 121, 121A, 302, 307, 325, 353, 400, 34 IPC read with Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the "UAPA Act"); Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and section 25(1-C) of the Arms Act, 1959, after the case was handed over to the NIA by the Manipur Police.
4. The petitioner had been arrested in FIR RC-05/2024/NIA/IMP ( herein after referred to as RC-05) on 19/05/2025 at 3-30 a.m. on the ground that Rifleman No. 0620211015 W. Somorjit Meitei of 6 th Manipur Rifles had died in the 05:30 hours attack at Moreh Bazar. The extract of RC-05 and the extract of Sl. Nos. 3 to 7 of the arrest memo are as follows :-
Extract of RC-05:
" (a) Suspected Offence:
On 17.01.2024 at around 0330 hrs, some heavily arrned suspected Kuki militants attacked the IRB Post located at Ima Kondog Lairembi, Moreh, Tegnoupal District using bombs and firearms thereby injuring one IRB personal namely Rfn No. 1310818/3rd IRB also promptly retaliated and thus encounter ensured between the Page No.# 3/16 unknown suspected Kukl militant who are waging war against the National security forces and IRB personnel. The fierce exchange of fire went on for hours and spread to many parts of Moreh including at Moreh Bazar. At around 0530 hrs there was heavy exchange of fire including hurling bombs between the suspected Kuki militants and Security Forces at Moreh Bazar. During the sald exchange of fire Rifleman No. 0620211015 W. Somorjit Meitei of 6th Manipur Rifles attained martyrdom in the line of duty and two Riflemen namely (1) Rfn. No. 1310823/3 IRB Songsuathul Almol and (II) Rfn. No. 022006172/3rd IRB Md. Abdul Hasim were injured. The Injured personnel were immediately rushed to 5th Assam Rifle unit Hospital for further medical treatment."
Sl. Nos. 3 to 7 of the arrest memo:
3 Date, time & place of : 19.05.2025 @ 03:30 Hrs.
arrest Silchar Police Station Dist-Cachar Assam
4. Name, parentage and : Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate, 28 yrs (Date of address of the arrestee Birth 05/02/1998) S/o Doujangam Mate, R/o HT Gamnomphai Village Tengnoupal Sub-Division Chandel, Moreh, Manipur. PIN 795131.
5. Name & designation of : Sh. Chamala Prasanth, DySP, NIA BO Guwahati.
officer: effecting arrest
6. Name & address of : 1. LNK(UB)841 Ataur Rahaman Barbhuiya of Silchar witnesses Police Station.
2. LNK(UB)591 Pradip Kumar Das of Silchar Police Station.
7. Whether the grounds of arrest have been explained (in vernacular if Yes.
possible) to accused.
· Investigation conducted so far has established that the person namely Walkhom Rohit was involved in the present commission Page No.# 4/16 of crime which involves attacking at IRB Post, Kongdong Leirembi, Moreh, Manipur Police Commando personnels at Moreh Town and killing of 02 Manipur Police Commando personnels.
· Evidences collected so far in the investigation, has affirmed that the person namely Thangminien Mate @ Lenin Mate, along with other associates are part of planning, conspiracy and execution of attacking at IRB Post, Manipur Police Commando personnels and killing of individual in the instant case · Arrest is necessary to unearth the whole conspiracy and planning, to apprehend the other accused Involved in the present crime and to avoid destruction of evidence which has not been collect till now A perusal of the above shows that the investigation conducted by the NIA so far had "established" that Waikhom Rohit was involved in the killing of the two Manipur Police Commando Personnel.
5. The petitioner submitted an application for bail before the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, in RC-05 on 23/05/2025, which was allowed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, on 18/06/2025.
6. The petitioner was thereafter let out from jail on 20/06/2025. However, on coming out of jail on 20/06/2025, the petitioner was arrested on 20/06/2025 by the NIA, in connection with another FIR 25(1)/2024 registered in the Moreh Police Station, Manipur on 09.02.2024, which was renumbered as FIR RC-06/2024/NIA/IMP, hereinafter referred to as RC-06, which was in relation to the killing of another Manipur Police Commando i.e. Takhellambam Page No.# 5/16 Seileshor Singh and injury caused to other personnel. The offence for which the petitioner was arrested on 20/06/2025, which is reflected in RC-06, is reproduced herein below, as follows :-
"(a) Suspected Offence:
On 17.01.2024 at around 15:10 hrs, some heavily armed suspected Kuki militants attacked the IRB Post located at Moreh Town, Tegnoupal District, Manipur using bombs and firearms. The security personal also promptly retaliated and thus encounter ensured between the unknown suspected Kuki militant who are waging war against the Security Forces and Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) personnel. The fierce exchange of fire went on for hours and spread to many parts of Moreh Including at Moreh Bazar. At around 0530 hrs there was heavy exchange of fire Including hurling bombs between the suspected Kuki militants and Security Forces at Moreh Bazar. During the said exchange of fire Havildar No. 112005762 Takhellambam Seileshor Singh of Special Commando attained martyrdom in the line of duty and 6 (six) personnel were injured."
7. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was never informed about the registration of the other NIA case against the petitioner, i.e. RC-06/2024/NIA/IMP dated 09.02.2024, at the time of his arrest in the earlier NIA case, i.e. RC-05 on 19.05.2025, which had been registered on the same day, i.e. 09.02.2024. The NIA Court was also not even informed about RC-06, even during the time the petitioner's case was being considered by the learned NIA Court, for grant of bail in RC-05.
8. He submits that it was the duty of the State to apprise not only the petitioner, but also the Court, regarding the fact that another criminal case had been registered against the petitioner on 09.02.2024, instead of informing him only at the time of his arrest on 20.06.2025, to basically thwart/flout the order passed by the learned NIA Court, granting him bail on 18.06.2024 in RC-05. In Page No.# 6/16 this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Chand and others Vs. Sk. Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J & K [(1983) 2 SCC 417], in support of his submission that his arrest in RC-06 was illegal. He also submits that the NIA had never asked for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the time he was in judicial custody in respect of RC-05, prior to him being granted bail. If the NIA was serious of eliciting some information from the petitioner with regard to the offence pertaining to RC-06, the petitioner could have been easily interrogated during his judicial custody from 19/05/2025 till 18/06/2025 in RC-05.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Arrest Memo dated 19/05/2025 in RC-05, by which the petitioner was arrested, it is stated that the investigation conducted so far by the NIA had established that one Waikhom Rohit was involved in the commission of the crime, which involved attacking the IRB Post, Kongdong Leirembi, at Moreh Town, which resulted in the killing of 02 Manipur Police Commando Personnel. He submits that the FIR- RC-05 however, only reflects the fact that one Police personal had been killed, though in the arrest memo used for arresting the petitioner, it is seen that 2(two) Manipur Police Commando have been killed in connection with RC-05.
10. He also submits that the FIR RC-06 also shows that only 1(one) Police personal had been killed and as such, it appears that the NIA had made two cases out of one and the same incident.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further brought to the notice of this Court that in Criminal Appeal No. 234/2025 submitted by the NIA before this Court, in relation to the challenge made to the bail granted to the Page No.# 7/16 petitioner in RC-05 by the NIA Court, the application for bail submitted by the petitioner and the reply to the bail petition by the NIA in RC-05 had been annexed as Annexure-B & C. In the bail petition pertaining to RC-05 submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner had stated at Para 11 that Waikhom Rohit belonged to the Meitei Community, whereas the petitioner belonged to the Kuki Community. As the conflict between the two communities started in the year 2023 which is still going on, the chance of attacking the IRB post by the coming together of the two accused persons from rival communities was remote and nigh to impossible. It was also stated in the said paragraph 11 by the petitioner that the Investigating Agency clearly stated during the course of investigation that they had established that Waikhom Rohit was involved in the commission of offence of attacking the IRB post, Kongdong Leirembi, Moreh and the killing of 2(two) Manipur Police Commando personnel.
12. The reply made by the NIA in para 8 of their objection to para 11 of the bail application, was to the effect that the involvement of any particular person or organisation cannot be ruled out at this stage, which is at the very initial stage of collection of facts and evidence.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the NIA had not disputed the averments of the petitioner in para 11 of his bail application in RC-05, would go to show that there could have been no involvement of the petitioner in the killing of the 2(two) Manipur Police Commandoes, in collusion with the said W. Rohit, who belonged to the rival Meitei Community.
14. Mr. R.K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI, appearing for the respondents (NIA) submits that there were two incidents of exchange of gun fire between Page No.# 8/16 unknown suspected Kuki militants and the Security Forces, due to which 1(one) Police personnel died in relation to RC-05 and another police personnel died in relation to RC-06.
15. He submits that there was no wrong committed by the NIA in arresting the petitioner in RC-06, after he had come out from jail, pursuant to the bail granted to him by the learned NIA Court on 18/06/2025 in relation to RC-05, inasmuch as, the involvement of the petitioner in the exchange of gunfire in the IRB post and Moreh Bazar, Moreh, could be established only after the messages in the mobile phone of the petitioner were translated and necessary permission for the same had been taken from the concerned authorities. He submits that the fact that the petitioner belonged to the Kuki community, who were engaged in a gunfight against the security forces was established from the mobile phone messages (SMS) of the petitioner. The DSGI further submits that as per the Call Detail Record (CDR), the location of the petitioner was traced to Moreh Town on the date of the incident. As such, the involvement of the petitioner in the exchange of gunfire on the 17.01.2024 was quite apparent.
16. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
17. A perusal of the contents of FIR Nos.RC-05 and RC-06 goes to show that both FIRs have recorded the fact that there was heavy exchange of fire at around 05:30 hours between the unknown suspected Kuki militants and security forces at Moreh Bazar, during which police personnel of the Manipur Rifles died. The only difference in RC-05 and RC-06 is to the effect that in respect of RC-05, it has been stated that the armed unknown suspected Kuki militants had attacked IRB post located at Ima Kongdong Leirembi, Moreh, Page No.# 9/16 Tengnoupal District on 07.01.2024 at around 0330 hrs, where one IRB personnel Rfn No. 1310818/3rd IRB was injured, who promptly retaliated. However in the heavy exchange of fire at Moreh Bazar at 0530 hours, Rifleman No.0620211015 W. Somorjit Meetei of 6 th Manipur Rifles attained martyrdom. In the FIR RC-06, it has been stated that on 17.01.2024 at around 15:10 hours, some unknown suspected armed Kuki militants attacked the IRB Post located at Moreh Town, Tegnoupal District using bombs and firearms. In the heavy exchange of fire including hurling bombs at Moreh Bazar at around 0530 hours, Havildar No.112005762 Takhellambam Seileshor Singh attained martyrdom. As can be seen from the two FIR Nos.RC-05 & RC-06, deaths of the police personnel had occurred during the exchange of fire arms at around 05:30 hours at Moreh Bazar. There was no deaths during the exchange of firearms which had started at 03:30 hours in IRB post or in the exchange of firearms at 15:10 hours in the IRB Post.
18. The above being said, this Court had asked the Dy. SGI and the officers of the NIA, who were present in the Court, as to who were the two Manipur Police Commando personnel who were killed and which fact was reflected in the Arrest Memo issued to the petitioner in RC-05, wherein Waikhom Rohit was said to be involved in their killings. The NIA officers stated that the two police commandos who had died were W. Somorjit Meetei and Takhellambam Seileshor Singh. As the Arrest Memo of the petitioner in RC-05 has clearly stated that Waikhom Rohit was involved in the attack which killed the above two police personnel, no explanation has been forthcoming as to how the petitioner who was of a different rival community, could also have been involved in the said attack on the police personnel. The above gives rise to a question as to how the police personnel and the NIA could have registered Page No.# 10/16 separate FIRs, when the two deaths had apparently occurred in respect of one incident. Further, it is not the NIA's case that members of the two rival communities had both had an exchange of gunfire with the Manipur Police Commandoes on 17.01.2024 at Moreh town. It is disturbing to find that when the arrest memo of the petitioner in relation to RC-05 shows that it had been established that Waikhom Rohit had been involved in the killing of 2 Manipur Police Commandoes at Moreh town, the said fact is not mentioned in the FIRs RC-05 and RC-06. We hope that this is not an attempt to give a different and wrong colour to an incident, keeping in view the very obvious contradiction made by the enforcement agencies in the investigation in the killing of the 2 Manipur Police Commandos on 17.01.2024 at Moreh town.
19. Paragraph-11 of the petitioner's application for bail in RC-05 is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows :
"11. That the petitioner begs to state that Investigating Agency has clearly stated that during the course of investigation they have established that the person namely Waikhom Rohit was involved in the commission of the offence of attacking at IRB Post, Kongdong Leirembi, Moreh and killing 2 (Two) Manipur Police Commando personnel. It must be mentioned herein that the said person Waikhom Rohit belongs to Meitei Community whereas the arrested accused person belongs to Kuki community and the conflict between the two communities started in 2023, which is still going on. Therefore, the chances of attacking the IRB post by the accused persons coming together from both the communities and by joining hands together is remote and near to impossible."
20. Paragraph-8 of the NIA's reply to the petitioner's paragraph-11 in the bail application, in relation to RC-05, is also reproduced herein below, as follows :
"8. That, on 20/05/2025 the seized mobile phones which were recovered from the possession of accused at the time of his apprehension, were forwarded to Page No.# 11/16 CFSL, New Delhi for examination. Accordingly, the CFSL has furnished the seized mobiles along with the mirror data and scrutiny of the mirror data has been in progress. During Scrutiny of the mirror data of the seized mobiles, some incriminating chats were obtained related to the instant case. It is submitted that, during investigation, the accused person has not fully co- operated the investigation agency and accused concealing the facts known by him. The accused person is influential person and he was involved in the above commission of the crime. The allegation against the accused is a heinous crime and all the offences are non-bailable."
21. The above extracted paragraphs of the two petitions show that Waikhom Rohit belongs to the Meitei Community and that he was said to have been involved in the killing of the two Manipur police commando personnel. When the entire conflict in the State of Manipur has been between the Meitei and Kuki Community of Manipur, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner could have been said to be involved in the same incident, which resulted in the killing of the two police personnel, along with Waikhom Rohit, who belongs to the Meitei Community.
22. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act states as follows :
"43D(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."
23. With regard to the contention of the Dy. SGI that the messages in the Page No.# 12/16 petitioner's mobile showed his involvement in the exchange of gunfire on 17.01.2024, we have perused the messages. There is nothing in the messages to show that the petitioner was involved in the exchange of gunfire held on 17.01.2024 in terms of the two FIRs. Further, even if the CDR showed the presence of the petitioner in Moreh town, we are of the view that the petitioner being a resident within the jurisdiction of the Moreh Police Station, the same does not prove that the petitioner was involved in any exchange of gunfire with the police, especially when nothing is discernible to that effect from the case diary/records produced and shown to us. It is surprising to note that FIR RC-05 and RC-06 only speaks of unknown suspected Kuki miscreants engaging in gunfire on 17.01.2024 in Moreh town, when the involvement of Waikhom Rohit, who belongs to the Meitei community, has been established in the killing of the 2 police personnel mentioned in the above 2 FIRs. The NIA would have to explain as to why the name of Waikhom Rohit is not mentioned in the 2 FIRs, while it is mentioned in the petitioner's arrest memo in relation to RC-05.
24. The impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned NIA Court in RC-06, rejected the petitioner's application for bail in RC-06, only on the ground that two separate cases had been initiated against the petitioner, vide two RC-05 and RC-06, which were initially registered as FIR No.26(1)/2024 and 25(1)/2024 by the Manipur Police at Moreh Police Station, Manipur, which was reflected in the order of the Under Secretary to the Government of India dated 08.02.2024. The impugned order dated 25.06.2025 also states that both the FIRs were general in nature and not specifically against the petitioner. The reasons given by the learned NIA Court for rejection of the prayer for bail is that it seemed from the record that the registration of 2 cases, i.e. FIR No. Page No.# 13/16 251(1)/2024 and 26(1)/2024, had been intimated to the NIA Court. The learned NIA Court held in the impugned order as follows:-
"Having heard the contentions of Sri Choudhury and on careful scanning of both the case record, it transpires that this Court has been intimated about the pendency of both the cases against the accused person, of course, not specifically against the accused but both the FIRs were general in nature since some heavily armed suspected Kuki militants attacked the IRB post. So, even if there is no clear mention of the names of the accused involved, nevertheless, the pendency of the case has been duly intimated to this Court and in the later stage, in the course of investigation, the complicity of the accused in both the cases have surfaced as submitted by the learned counsel for NIA following which accused Mr. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate has been arrested in this case.
In Uday Chand and ors. vs Sheikh Mahammed Abdullah reported in 1983 2 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that after the bail order has passed by us, the authorities of the state considered it fit to arrest any of the petitioner for any other offences, it was their bounden duty to apprise this court before taking these persons in custody, specially when no disclosure was made to us when we pass the order on bail that any case or cases were under investigation against any of the petitioners whose arrest is clearly contrary to the order of bail passed by this court.
But in the instant case, as it seems from record, the fact of registration of the two cases, i.e. FIR No. 25(1)/2024 of Moreh PS, Dist. Tengnoupal, Manipur and FIR No. 26(1)/2024 of Moreh PS, Dist. Tengnoupal, Manipur, have been intimated to this Court. Therefore, in the present case, there appears to have no such violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Uday Chand and ors. vs Sheikh Mahammed Abdullah."
Keeping in view the increasing hostilities between two communities and the acts of terror organizations, the bail had been rejected by the learned NIA Court in RC-06.
25. What is clear from the above is that the learned NIA Court and the Page No.# 14/16 petitioner were not aware that the petitioner had been roped in, in another case, i.e. RC-06 when bail had been granted in RC-05. The petitioner had been arrested on coming out of jail on 20.06.2025, on being granted bail in RC-05 on 18.06.2025.
26. We do not agree with the observation of the learned NIA Court that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Uday Chand and others (Supra), has been followed, as it has been stated in para 5 of the Uday Chand and others (Supra) as follows:-
"5. Mr Kacker stated before us that the petitioners were enlarged on bail in pursuance of the Order passed by this Court on March 2, 1981 but they were subsequently arrested for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior to March 2, 1981. We are quite amazed at this statement and we should have expected that if after the order of bail passed by us the authorities of the State considered it fit to arrest any of the petitioners for any other offences, it was their bounden duty to apprise this Court before taking these persons in custody, especially when no disclosure was made to us when we passed the order of bail that any case or cases were under investigation against any of the petitioners. We regret that this elementary courtesy to this Court was not shown. We would like to reiterate that the petitioners shall be treated as free citizens inspite of the fact that they have been subsequently arrested which arrests are clearly contrary to the order of bail passed by this Court."
27. There is also nothing to show that the learned NIA Court had been made aware of the involvement of Waikhom Rohit being established in the killing of the 2 Police Commandos, as per the petitioner's arrest memo in RC-05, as can be seen in the impugned order.
28. In the case of Kamal Dutta Vs. Union of India, reported in 2015 (1) Page No.# 15/16 GLT 517, this Court had held that arresting the accused in a different case from outside the Court where he was granted bail, without disclosing to the Court about the need to arrest him in another case, was wholly unacceptable. In the present case, the mentioning of the FIR RC-06 to the Court, without making any statement or implying that the said FIR involved the petitioner, cannot amount to disclosing to the petitioner that he had another case in which he was likely to be arrested.
29. A careful perusal of the contents of RC-05 and RC-06 shows that deaths had occurred only in respect of the exchange of fire that had taken place at Moreh Bazar at around 5:30 hours, which is reflected in both the FIRs. When the involvement of W. Rohit is said to be established in the killing of the two Manipur Police Commandoes in Moreh, on 17.01.2024, it is not understood as to how the petitioner, who is of the rival community, could be said to be involved in the killing of any one of the above 2 police personnel. Further, it is highly unlikely that the petitioner, a Kuki, would have planned the attack for or with Waikhom Rohit, a Meitei. It prima facie appears to us that the Manipur Police has made two FIRs out of one and the same incident. It should be noted that in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has held that there can be no second F.I.R. and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.
30. On considering all the above, we are of the view that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accusation made against the petitioner is prima facie true, as it is not the case of the NIA that the Kuki and Page No.# 16/16 Meitei elements had together attacked the IRB Post or the Moreh Bazar on 17.01.2024.
31. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a case is made out for grant of bail, even where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the Courts should not hesitate to grant bail. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the grant of bail, if the conditions in the statute are satisfied and in accordance with law.
32. We are accordingly of the view that bail should be granted to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is granted bail, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/-, with 1(one) surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall report to the Investigating Authority as and when called for and help in the investigation. He shall not try to influence any of the witnesses or tamper with any evidence that might have been collected.
33. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.06.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Guwahati, in connection with NIA Case No.RC- 06/2024/NIA-IMP is hereby set aside.
34. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant