SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
Michael Zothankhuma, Devashis Baruah, JJ.
Dr. Limhathung Jami – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Nagaland Represented By The Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(Crl.)/9/2023
Decided On : 08-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Joshua Sheqi, Ms. Mika H. Aye, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate

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.

Headnote:

Detention Order - National Security Act - Section 3(1) and (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the grounds for detention under Section 3(1) and (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, the timelines as stipulated in the Act, and the circumstances under which a person in custody can be detained under the detention laws. The court highlighted the importance of the Detaining Authority being aware of the detenu's custody status and the need for compelling reasons justifying detention despite the detenu being in custody.

Fact of the Case:

The detenu was already in custody when a Detention Order was passed against him under the National Security Act. The court found that the Detaining Authority was unaware of the detenu's custody status and had not considered compelling reasons justifying the detention.

Finding of the Court:

The Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order were set aside and quashed due to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority and the lack of consideration of the detenu's custody status.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order should be interfered with due to the detenu being already in custody and the lack of consideration of compelling reasons for the detention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that 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 Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order were set aside and quashed due to non-application of mind and the lack of consideration of the detenu's custody status.

Final Decision: The Detention Order, Approval Order, and Confirmation Order were all set aside and quashed.

JUDGMENT :

D. Baruah, J.

Heard Ms. Mika H. Aye, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner who is the uncle of one Mr. Eshenthung Jami (hereinafter referred to as the “detenu”) challenging the Detention Order No.DCP/CON/PT-1/88-89 dated 21.07.2023 (for short “the Detention Order”) and the Approval Order bearing No.CON/NSA/03/2023/36 dated 31.07.2023 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland (for short “the Approval Order”) and further sought for a direction that the detenu be released from detention forthwith.

3. It reveals from a perusal of the writ petition that on 05.07.2023, an F.I.R. was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Phek Police Station that on the said date, an information was received from the PHQ that a person travelling in a sumo taxi from Phek to Dimapur was arrested by personnels of Kezocha Police Station for possessing of illegal ammunition numbering to 200 live rounds. On being interrogated, it was ascertained that the ammunitions were bought from the detenu, who was the Armorer of Phek DEF. Thereupon, the detenu was detained at Phek Police Station for further investigation. It was also alleged in the said F.I.R. that the detenu admitted to have sold the ammunitions. The Phek Police Personnel’s also searched the detenu’s residence and recovered 20 (twenty) live rounds of 7.62 x 39 mm, 2 (two) live rounds of 9 x 19 mm, 7.62 x 51 mm 4 (four) live rounds, 9 x 19 mm bullet head 6 (six) nos., 7.62 x 51 mm bullet head 2 (two) nos. and 7.62 x 39 mm bullet head 1 (one) no. Further, 500 currency notes amounting to Rs.26,000/-was also recovered. On the basis of the said F.I.R. so filed, a case was registered being Phek P.S. Case No.0004/23 under Section 381/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1)(a) & (h) of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. The detenu thereupon filed a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phek. The said bail application was allowed vide an order dated 12.07.2023 and the detenu was granted bail. We have perused the said bail order dated 12.07.2023 which is enclosed as Annexure-B to the writ petition. It appears from the said order that though the detenu was granted bail but as the detenu was unable to produce the sureties, he was remanded back to the judicial custody for 15 days.

5. The record further reveals that an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 437(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) praying for cancellation of the bail order dated 12.07.2023. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phek vide an order dated 18.07.2023 cancelled the bail so granted in favour of the detenu. The detenu thereafter filed an application before the District and Sessions Judge, Phek challenging the order of cancellation of the bail as well as seeking bail. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Phek vide an order dated 20.07.2023 in Misc. Application (Bail) No.35/2023 rejected the said application filed by the detenu.

6. While the above proceedings were going on, on 13.07.2023, the Superintendent of Police, Phek submitted a proposal for detention of the detenu under the provisions of Section 3(1) and (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. In the said proposal, the grounds for detention were mentioned which being relevant for deciding the writ petition are reproduced hereinunder:

    “Grounds for detention

1. Subject sold ammunitions to Talimbo Zeliang who originally hails from State of Manipur, where current public order and law and order situation is grave. Criminal conspiracy regarding smuggling of restricted ammunition is still under investigation, therefore such act possess great threat to national security and maintenance of public order.

2. Criminal investigation against the accused and his co-suspects is still ongoing and his at large may hamper/effect

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top