THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, BUDI HABUNG
Shri Jeilei Konyak S/O Longsha – Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
D. Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. A. Sophie, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in W.P.(Crl.)/6/2025 and Mr. Pakinrichapbo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in W.P.(Crl.)/4/2025. Ms. Livika V. Sumi, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in both the writ petitions and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in both the writ petitions.
2. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order taking into account that both the detenues were arrested on 24.05.2024 in connection with Narcotic P.S. Case No. 09/2024 registered under Sections 21(C)/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act of 1985”). As in both the cases, the Detention Orders, the Confirmation Orders and the Orders passed by the Advisory Board as well as the Extension Orders are separate, we find it pertinent to narrate the facts in both the cases separately which are as herein under:
W.P. (Crl.)/4/2025
3. The present writ petition is filed by the wife of the detenu- Mr. Jackiss who was detained un
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of likelihood of bail and potential prejudicial activities; mere assertions are insufficient for lawful detention.
Preventive detention requires compelling reasons even if the individual is already in custody; mere assertions are insufficient for lawful detention.
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence of a detainee's likelihood of bail and potential for prejudicial activities; failure to consider these factors invalidates the detention order.
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.
Preventive detention quashed for lack of subjective satisfaction: 8-year gap between cases, acquittal in one, incidental recovery during warrant execution fail to establish live proximate link to pub....
Preventive detention requires strict compliance with statutory safeguards and justifications for delay, ensuring protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act is justified based on subjective satisfaction of authorities, even if the detenue is in judicial custody, if there is a likelihood of future illicit activit....
Detention orders under the PITNDPS Act can be upheld when communicated timely and justified despite delays in arrest, emphasizing the subjective satisfaction of authorities against habitual offenders....
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 must be based on current threats and not solely on past conduct; reliance on stale incidents undermines legality.
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.