IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KAKHETO SEMA, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Shri Kedingulie Keretsu – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And Ors – Respondents
W.P.(Crl.) 2 of 2023
Decided on : 27-07-2023
Detention Order - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 3(1) - Article 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the detention order passed against the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner argued that the detention order was passed without proper application of mind and that there was an unreasonable delay in considering the representation submitted by the detenue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was supported by sufficient grounds and there was no infirmity in passing the order. The court also held that the disposals of the representation were within a reasonable time and in accordance with the law. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, and the detention order was affirmed.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the validity of the detention order and the reasonableness of the delay in considering the detenue's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detention order was supported by sufficient grounds and there was no infirmity in passing the order. The court also found that the disposals of the representation were within a reasonable time and in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the detention order dated 22/2/2023 and confirmation order dated 9/5/2023 were affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. Hisinlo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Yangerwati, learned C.G.C.
2. This writ petition has been instituted by one Shri Kedingulie keretsu who claims to be the brother-in-law of the accused Ruokuodilhou Liezietsu (detenue) assailing the impugned detention order No.CON/PITNDPS/01/2023/01 dated 22/2/2023 passed by the Special Secretary, (Home), Government of Nagaland Kohima the impugned order No.-CON/PITNDPS/01/2023/12 dated 24/3/2023 rejecting the representation of the detenue and the impugned confirmation order No.CON/PITNDPS/01/2023/24 dated 9/5/2023 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland confirming the detention of the detenue on the ground of violation of Article 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic under NDPS Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PITNDPS Act).
3. The case of the petitioner is that on 24/1/2023 at around 6.00 hours, the Police including the STF, Narcotoc Cell and Crime Branch raided the residence of the detenue and arrested him on the allegation of involvement in suspected Narcotic and Arms and illegal trafficking of considerable quantity of Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substance and engaged in marketing the same to gullible people of Nagaland. Further allegation is that the detenue had recruited several persons to trade in Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance in and around Kohima town and is suspected to be a member of Under Ground group. The police recovered suspected Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substance and arms from the residence of the detenue and accordingly FIR dated 24/1/2023 by Narcotic Cell PS PHQ Nagaland Kohima was registered being Case No.003/2023 u/s 21(a)/60 of the NDPS Act r/w 25(1B) Arms Act and 7 NSR Act. During the raid the following items were recovered from the residence of the detenue:-
2. Cash amounting to Rs.10110/-
3. Few handmade pipe/apparatus
4. Two Nos. of country made pistol.32 pistols and .22 pistols along with 15 live round.
4. After the arrest the detenue was transferred to the judicial custody at the district Jail Kohima and then transferred to Dimapur Central Jail. The Addl. DGP (L & O) Nagaland sent a proposal letter to the Special Secretary (Home) for detention of the detenue under section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act,1988 vide order No.PHQ/IGP/CID/NAR-D/81A/2022/148 dated 10/2/2023. Thereafter, the impugned detention order No.CON/PITNDPS/01/2023/01 dated 22/2/2023 was passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Kohima along with the grounds of detention for initial period of 3 months w.e.f. the date of detention till 21/5/2023 by directing the detenue to be detained.
5. The detenue being aggrieved of the detention order dated 22/2/2023 has submitted representation against the impugned detention order dated 22/2/2023 through the Superintendent Central Jail, Dimapur Nagaland and the same was forwarded and received on the same day. Thereafter, vide Order No.CON/PITNDPS/01/2023/12 dated 24/3/2023, the Special Secretary (Home) to the Government of Nagaland considered and rejected the representation of the detenue. By order No.CON/PITNDPS/01/2023/24 dated 9/5/2023, the Chief Secretary Government of Nagaland, on basis of report of the Advisory Board had confirmed the detention of the detenue and further extended the detention period for another period of 3(three) months wef 22/5/2023 till 21/8/2023.
6. By memorandum No.F.NO.U-11013/38/2023-PIT-NDPS dated 16/5/2023, the Central Government through the Under Secretary to the Government of India had informed that the representation of the detenue has been examined and considered along with material facts on record by Secretary (Revenue) on behalf of the Central Government and the same was rejected.
Ankit Ashok Jalan vs Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 16 SCC 127
Baby Devassy vs Union of India reported in (2013) 4 SCC 531
Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 211 : (2007) 1SCC (Cri) 680
The detention order must be supported by sufficient grounds, and the disposals of the representation must be within a reasonable time and in accordance with the law.
The detention order must be based on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, and delay in disposal of the representation by the State Government and non-consideration of the representation....
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
Preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act is justified if the detaining authority reasonably believes the individual poses a threat to public safety, even if they are already in judicial custody.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing the detenue with all the material on which the detention order was based to enable them to make an effective represe....
Detention orders must communicate grounds in an understandable language and demonstrate legal compliance, particularly regarding the detenu's probable release on bail and overall threat assessment.
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.