GAUHATI HIGH COURT
T.Nanda Kumar Singh,Mutum B.K.Singh, JJ.
Loitongbam Manimohon Singh -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur & Ors. -Resopndent
Writ Petition (Cril) No. 118 of 2010
Decided On : 12-05-2011
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 22 - UA(P) A Act - Section 19/39 - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3 – Offence of punishment - Release on bail - Army personnel who came to quarter of detenue that she had to accompany them their camp for certain verifications but her vehement protests were brushed aside and compelled accompany said army personnel - Having no alternative she accompanied army personnel to their camp - Reaching army camp she was taken into room and army personnel who could speak local Manipuri language along with some other army personnel entered room and started questioning her as to whether she has any connection with faction or whether she has any nexus with them she answered in negative – Held, Well settled law subjective satisfaction of detaining authority arrived at for detaining detenue as preventive measure preventive law is invalid if such satisfaction is based on nonexistent or irrelevant ground only - Reference subjective satisfaction of detaining authority arrived at while considering materials and records was cumulative result of all grounds of detention and involvement of detenue in different activities - Reference may be made in Andhra Pradesh - Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate offence while criminal proceedings are to punish person for an offence committed by him - They are not parallel proceedings - Object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive - Resorted to when executive is convinced on materials available and placed before it that such detention is necessary in order prevent person detained from acting in manner prejudicial certain objects which are specified by law - Action of executive in detaining person being only precautionary matter has necessarily to be left discretion executive authorities - Practicable lay down objective rules of conduct failure to confirm to which alone should lead detention – Petition dismissed
Heard Mr. Dolen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Modhuchandra, learned GA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner is the husband of the detenue, Smt. Khumukcham (N) Loitongbam (O) Memcha Devi @ Ichechaobi, who is now detained under the National Security Act, 1980.
3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On 03.06.2010 at about 11.50 a.m while the detenue was at her residential quarter at Langol Game Village Zone-Ill, some army personnel came and enquired about her. One of the army personnel who could speak Manipuri language confirned her identity and enquired whether she was arrested previously for being a sympathizer of the banned organization KCP(MC) Lalheiba faction; she admitted that she was once arrested in connection with FIR No. 135(4)2010 IPS under Section 19/39 UA(P) A Act on 08.05.2010. For that case, she was remanded to police custody till 14.04.2010. On 14.04.2010 the detenue was produced before the Court for judicial remand but released on bail by the Court on the same day. After release on bail by the Court, the detenue stayed at the rented quarter at Langol Game Village, Zone-III.
4. The said army personnel who came to the quarter of the detenue on 03.06.2010 told the detenue that she had to accompany them to their camp for certain verifications, but her vehement protests were brushed aside and compelled to accompany the said army personnel. Having no alternative she accompanied the army personnel to their camp. On reaching army camp she was taken into a room and an army personnel who could speak local Manipuri language along with some other army personnel entered the room and started questioning her as to whether she has any connection with the KCP (MC) Lalheiba faction or whether she has any nexus with them; she answered in the negative. The army personal also enquired, 'is it true that she is the recruiting officer of the KCP (MC) Lalheiba faction', to which she vehemently denied.
After some time the army personnel brought in some youths and they were made to confirm and identify her; she realised that two youths from her native village were some of the individuals who contacted one Surdas @ Dash at her instance for providing them jobs at Bangkok. However, it transpired that they were taken to other locations for a totally different purpose by the said Surdas @ Dash.
5. The detenue also admitted that the said Surdas @ Dash of Kumbi Bazar frequently visited her rented residential quarter at Langol Game Village. Surdas @ Dash approached the detenue one day with the proposal that he is looking for eligible youths who are capable of doing jobs at Bangkok as he has connection with an NGO situated at Bangkok. She approached some of her near relatives as well as peoples of her native village who are interested in sending their children to Bangkok for doing jobs and informed the interested individuals and their families to contact the said Surdas@ Dash for detailed information regarding the same. Thereafter, the detenue, it is stated, had no knowledge of any development regarding the matter as their association with the matter as such ended after providing the requisite information to the interested families. Despite her vehement protests the detenue was taken by the army personnel to Lamphel P. S. and handed her to the O/C, Lamphel P. S.
6. On 04.06.2010 the detenue was produced before the Court for remanding her to police custody in connection with FIR No. 55 (6) 2010 Lamphel P.S. under Section 20 UA (P) A Act which was registered against her. The learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the detenue to police custody till 10.06.2010 and thereafter remanded to judicial custody. On 14.06.2010 while the detenue was in police custody she was served with the impugned detention order being Cril/NSA/No.56 of 2010 dated 14.06.2010. The impugned detention order read as follows:
"No. Cril/NSA/No. 56 of 2010: Whereas, a police report ha
Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213 [Para 12]
Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India &Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1640 [Para 18]
Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mi 11 (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111 [Para 12]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. N.R. Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579 [Para 13]
Senthamilselvi Vs. State of T. N. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 676 [Para 15]
Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu TR. Section to Government & Anr. 2011 (4) Scale 387 [Para 11]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.