IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, DEVASHIS BARUAH, JJ.
Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi D/O Thangboi Hoakip – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And 3 Ors – Respondents
W.P.(Crl.) 13 of 2024
Decided on : 22-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
[Manish Chodhury, J]
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred on behalf of a detenu, Smti. Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the detenu’, for short] by the detenu’s elder sister, Smti. Lhingneikim Haokip as the next friend to challenge a Detention Order bearing no. CON/PITNDPS/15/2024/69 dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department [the respondent no.2] as the Detaining Authority in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section [1] of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [‘the PIT NDPS Act’, for short] and all other consequential orders passed thereafter. By the Detention Order dated 30.05.2024, the detenu was detained and kept in the District Jail, Dimapur for an initial period of 3 [three] months.
2. It appears relevant to delineate the previous events which purportedly led to the passing of the Order of Detention dated 30.05.2024, at first.
3. A First Information Report [FIR] [Suo Moto] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Narcotic Police Station, Police Headquarters [PHQ], Nagaland, Kohima on 06.04.2024 by one Pangerlemba Sangtam, an Assistant Sub-Inspector [ASI] attached to Narcotic Police Station, PHQ, Kohima stating inter-alia that on 05.04.2024, he and a team of police personnel were detailed for MVCP duty and accordingly, routine checkings of vehicles were being carried out by the team at a place in between Khuzama and Vizwema, near Agri-Link Road. During such routine checkings, at around 20-00 hours on 05.04.2024, one vehicle bearing registration no. AS-03/T-4234 [Mahindra TUV – red colour] [‘the subject-vehicle’, for short] which was coming from Manipur side, was made to stop for checking. On checking, the subject-vehicle was found to have the following three occupants including the driver, :-
[ii] Hoinu @ Vahboi, [50 yrs/F], W/o - Nehkoi Guite, Add - Zomi Villa, North AOC, Porompat, Imphal East, P/add - Kangpokpi, P.O./P.S. - Kangpokpi, Dist. - Kangpokpi, Manipur.
[iii] Chenneilhing [43 yrs/F], W/o - Angam, Add - Patjong, P.O./P.S. - Kangpokpi, Dist. - Kangpokpi, Manipur.
The informant had further mentioned that on inspection of the subject-vehicle, items, suspected to be narcotic drugs, were detected and information was immediately given to the superior officers. The Gazetted Police Officer, the Officer In-Charge, Khuzama Police Station and independent witnesses were called to the place to conduct search and seizure. The subject-vehicle was, thereafter, checked in presence of the witnesses and the suspected accused persons/occupants were also informed of their rights to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, after which body searches were carried out in presence of the Gazetted Officer.
3.1. The informant further stated that during search, narcotic drugs, suspected to be Heroin, packed in 20 [twenty] soap boxes, were found concealed inside the gear level cover of the subject-vehicle and accordingly, those were seized. In addition, the subject-vehicle with its ignition key and connected vehicular documents, a cash amount of Rs. 1,43,000/- and other items were seized from the possession of the accused persons by preparing a Seizure Memo, in presence of the independent witnesses, the Gazetted Police Officer, etc. The suspected narcotic drugs [Heroin] were weighed separately, with and without the soap box covers. On weighment, the total weight was found to be 239 gms [approx.], without the soap box covers. The informant further mentioned that the seizure process was carried out under videography. The seized contraband items were then serially marked, packed and sealed, with attestations of the independent witnesses, the Gazette
Ameena Begum vs. The State of Telengana and others
Hadibandhu Das vs. District Magistrate, Cuttack and another
Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Huidrom Knungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur and others
Khaja Bilal Ahmed vs. State of Telengana and others
Khudiram Das vs. State of West Bengal
Nandini Satpathy vs. P. L. Dani and another
Nenavath Bujji etc. vs. the State of Telengana and others
Raja Narayanlal Bansilal vs. Maneck Phiroz Mistry and another
Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah and another vs. D. K. Guha and others
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
Detention orders under preventive laws must communicate grounds in a language understood by the detainee; failure to do so violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5).
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.
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
Preventive detention – Preventive detention deprives a person of his/her individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of time without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence and pre....
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.