IMPORTANT POINTS
An individual incident of an offence under the Indian Penal Code, however heinous, is insufficient to make out a case for issuance of an order of preventive detention.

Headnote:National Security Act, 1980- Section 3(4)-Issuance of Detention Order by the District Magistrate, against Appellant’s husband- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority founded on belief that after having availed of bail facility, Appellant’s husband could indulge in commission of further prejudicial activities and an alternative preventive measure was, therefore, immediately needed in the circumstances-Writ Petition thereagainst-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Held extra-ordinary powers of detaining an individual in contravention of provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not warranted in the instant case, where the grounds of detention not disclosed any material which was before the detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every likelihood of detenu being released on bail in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of detention- When the Courts thought it fit to release Appellant’s husband on bail in connection with cases in respect of which he had been arrested, mere apprehension that he was likely to be released on bail as a ground of his detention, was not justified-Apart from that there was no live link between earlier incidents and the incident in respect of which detention order had been passed- Detaining authority acted rather casually in the matter in issuing order of detention - High Court also appeared to have missed right to liberty as contained in Article 21 of Constitution and Article 22(2) thereof-c (Paras 13 to 17)
       Facts of the Case :
        A Detention Order was issued by the District Magistrate herein in the instant case against Appellant’s husband under provisions of National Security Act. Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority was founded on belief that after having availed of bail facility, Appellant’s husband could indulge in commission of further prejudicial activities and An alternative preventive measure was, therefore, immediately needed in the circumstances. Writ Petition thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. The Court held that extra-ordinary powers of detaining an individual in contravention of provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not warranted in the instant case, where the grounds of detention not disclosed any material which was before the detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every likelihood of detenu being released on bail in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of detention. Article 21 of Constitution enjoins that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except, according to procedure established by law. Instantly , although the power is vested with the concerned authorities, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the detaining authority could not be sustained, inasmuch as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution. When the Courts thought it fit to release Appellant’s husband on bail in connection with cases in respect of which he had been arrested, mere apprehension that he was likely to be released on bail as a ground of his detention, was not justified.
        B. Apart from that there was no live link between earlier incidents and the incident in respect of which detention order had been passed. Detaining authority acted rather casually in the matter in issuing order of detention. High Court also appeared to have missed right to liberty as contained in Article 21 of Constitution and Article 22(2) thereof. Appeal was allowed.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Under the Detention Order No.Cril/NSA/No.10 of 2011, Imphal, the 31st January, 2011, issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur, the Appellant’s husband, Yumman Somendro @ Somo @ Tiken, was detained under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. The said detention order was approved by the Governor of Manipur on 7th February, 2011, in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 3(4) of the aforesaid Act. The order of the Governor of Manipur dated 18th March, 2011, confirming the detention order passed against the husband of the Appellant and fixing the period of detention for 12 months on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to be released on bail by the normal criminal Courts in the near future, was challenged on behalf of Yumman Somendro in the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench), but without success. This Appeal is directed against the said order of the High Court and the order of detention itself. Earlier, the Appellant’s husband had been arrested on 21st March, 1994 in connection with FIR No.478(3)1994 IPS u/s 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, but was released on bail by the normal criminal Court. Despite the above, again on 29th June, 1995, the Appellant’s husband was arrested in connection with FIR No.450(6)95 under Churachandpur P.S. under Sections 386 and 34 IPC. Though he was released on bail by the normal criminal Court, he was again arrested under Section 13 UA (P) Act in connection with FIR No.190(5)98 and was released on bail on 8th July, 1998. After being released on bail by the normal Criminal Court, Yumman Somendro was again arrested on 16th January, 2011, in connection with FIR No.21(1)11 IPS under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of the then Chairman of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, Dr. N. Kunjabihari Singh. The Appellant’s husband was produced before the Magistrate on 17th January, 2011, who remanded him to police custody till 31st January, 2011. On the said date, he was further remanded to police custody till 2nd February, 2011, and when he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with the said case, he was served with a copy of the detention order dated 31st January, 2011, issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, under the National Security Act, 1980.

3. On 31st January, 2011, the Appellant’s husband was served with the grounds of detention under the National Security Act, 1980, under the authority of the District Magistrate, Imphal West. Along with the said order, copies of the documents on which the detaining authority had relied on to arrive at the conclusion that the detention of the Appellant’s husband was necessary, was also served on him.

4. On a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is clear that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is founded on the belief that after having availed of bail facility, the Appellant’s husband could indulge in commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure was, therefore, immediately needed in the circumstances.

5. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, relied heavily on the decision of this Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Sec. to Govt.1 [(2011) 4 SCC 260], in which it had been held that in the absence of material particulars in similar cases in which bail had been granted, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was merely a ruse for issuance of the impugned detention order. After considering various decisions of this Court and the views of several jurists and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on proper material and the detaining authority was also aware that the detenu was in custody and was likely to be released on bail. The detaining authority, therefore, was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 6

2012 (1) Supreme 90SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAltamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar and J. Chelameswar, JJ.Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima — Appellant versusState of Manipur & Ors. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 26 of 2012(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.7926 of 2011)Decided on : 4-1-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS An individual incident of an offence under the Indian Penal Code, however heinous, is insufficient to make out a case for issuance of an order of preventive detention.

Cases Referred (3)

2012 (1) Supreme 90
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima — Appellant
versus
State of Manipur & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.7926 of 2011)
Decided on : 4-1-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
An individual incident of an offence under the Indian Penal Code, however heinous, is insufficient to make out a case for issuance of an order of preventive detention.