IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT KOHIMA BENCH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Shenungcha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 22(5),226 - Arms Act,1959 - Section 25(1B)(a) - National Security Act, 1980 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs - Possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention - Whether Detention Order, Approval Order, as well as Confirmation Order, take into consideration that Detenue is in judicial custody and inspite thereof, there is a requirement to pass such orders - Whether Detenue is likely to be released on bail is to be taken into consideration in forming subjective satisfaction while passing Detention Order – Held, There is no quarrel with proposition that an order of detention can be validly passed against a person in custody as would be seen from the judgments quoted hereinabove but however, Detention Order should take into consideration that there is a reasonable likelihood that Detenue would be released on bail - As Detention Order, the Approval Order, as well as Confirmation Order did not take into consideration that there were reliable materials before the Authority on the basis of which it could have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of Detenue's release on bail and further on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order, all three Orders, i.e. Detention Order, Approval Order, as well as Confirmation Order are in violation to Article 22(5) of the Constitution as the same appears to be passed on mere ipse dixit statements on Grounds of Detention and therefore cannot be sustained in law – Petition disposed.
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. Surien, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to quash and set aside the Detention Order passed by the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, Dimapur, vide No. CP/DMR/CB-19/2021-22/2204, dated 04.10.2021; the Approval Order vide No. CON/NSA/20/2021/118, dated 08.10.2021 and the Confirmation Order vide No. CON/NSA/20/2021/192, dated 24.11.2021 and for a direction, that the Respondents immediately release the Detenue. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, on 29.09.2021, at around 00:30 hrs, a search operation was launched by the 7th Assam Rifles, alongwith Police representatives at the house of the Detenue (the husband of the Petitioner) which allegedly led to the recovery of one .32 pistol, one magazine and two rounds of .32 pistol. On the basis thereof, the Detenue was apprehended on allegation of illegally possessing the seized items. On the same date, i.e. on 20.09.2021, Nb/Sub Dalbir Singh lodged an FIR with the Chumukedima Police Station and handed over the Detenue to the Chumukedima Police. On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered against the Detenue vide Chumukedima P.S. Case No. 0063/2021 under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, read with 7/8 of the Nagaland Security Regulation (NSR). In respect to the said arrest of the Detenue and on the basis of a prayer made by the Investigating Officer, the Detenue was put to 72 hours Police remand vide order of the Magistrate. Subsequently, after the expiry of the 72 hours, when the Detenue was produced he was forwarded to judicial custody for 15 days. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Detenue is still in judicial custody.
3. While in judicial custody in the Central Jail, Dimapur, the facts as would further reveal from a perusal of the record, is that, Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, Dimapur, had passed the Detention Order vide No. CP/DMR/CB-19/2021/22/2204 dated 04.10.2021. The said Order for the sake of convenience is hereinafter referred to as the Detention Order. At this stage, it may be relevant to mention that a perusal of the Detention Order dated 04.10.2021 do not in any manner reflect that the Detaining Authority had taken into consideration that the Detenue was in judicial custody and he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he would indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public interest. Even the Grounds of Detention also does not take into consideration the said aspect of the matter. In the Schedule to the said Grounds of Detention, though it has been reflected that the Detenue is presently under judicial custody at Central Jail, Dimapur, but there is no mention whatsoever, that there are reliable materials before the said authority on the basis of which it could have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of the Detenue to be released on bail and further on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order.
4. The record further reveals that on 08.10.2021, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland had vide an Order No. CON/NSA/20/2021/118 dated 08.10.2021 approved the Detention Order with a direction that the Detenue be kept in judicial custody for an initial period of three months w.e.f. the date of detention till 03.01.2022, and within which period the Detention would be reviewed as required under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. The said Order is hereinafter referred to as the Approval Order. A perusal of the said Approval Order do not in any manner reflect that the Approving Authority had taken into consideration that the Detenue was in judicial custody and there was reliable material before the authority on the basis of which it co
The Detaining Authority must be aware of the detenu's custody status and there must be compelling reasons justifying detention despite the detenu being in custody.
The judgment established the necessity of compelling reasons and reliable materials for issuing detention orders, especially when the detainee is already in custody.
The court ruled that detention orders must provide specific grounds and materials justifying detention, especially for individuals already in custody, to uphold constitutional rights.
Detention orders must provide specific grounds and cogent materials; failure to do so violates constitutional rights and renders the order illegal.
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
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.