IMPORTANT POINT
The question of personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and State Authority cannot be permitted to take it away without following the procedure prescribed by law, otherwise it would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and ?22 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.l.2012 passed by the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench at Imphal in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.98 of 2011 dismissing the Habeas Corpus petition challenging the order of detention of appellant’s son dated 30.6.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called `the Act’).

2. The son of the appellant, namely, Huidrom Shantikumar Singh was arrested on 19.6.2011 by the Imphal Police under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called `IPC’) read with Section 25(1-C) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter called `Arms Act’). The District Magistrate, Imphal West passed the detention order dated 30.6.2011 under the Act on various grounds with an apprehension that as in similar cases, the accused involved therein had been enlarged on bail the detenu in this case would also be released on bail and he would indulge in activities prejudicial to public order.

3. The appellant’s son was served with the grounds of detention dated 2.7.2011. The detenu made representations on 16.7.2011to the Central Government as well as to the Government of Manipur which stood rejected. The detention order was confirmed vide order dated 16.8.2011and confirmation order was furnished to the detenu on 18.8.2011. The appellant filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.98 of 2011 challenging the detention order in Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) which stood dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.1.2012. Hence, this appeal.

4. The question of personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and State Authority cannot be permitted to take it away without following the procedure prescribed by law, otherwise it would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and ?22 of the Constitution. In Ayya alias Ayub v. State ofU.P. & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 364, this Court held that the law of preventive detention is based and could be described as a “jurisdiction of suspicion" and the compulsion of values of freedom of democratic society and of social order sometimes might compel a curtailment of individual's liberty.

5. In Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 176, this Court held that personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution in Part III thereof. The State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal laws as also under the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order, warranting the issuance of such an order.

6. Whether a person who is in jail can be detained under detention law has been a subject matter of consideration before this Court time and again. In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1196, this Court while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the following conclusion:

"The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact