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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 422

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, BUDI HABUNG, JJ.
Shri Jeilei Konyak S/O Longsha - Appellant 
VERSUS
The State of Nagaland And Ors - Respondent 
W.P.(Crl.)/6/2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A. Sophie, Akhrieu Chusi, Asenla Longkumer, Mr. Pakinrichapbo, Advocate
For the Respondent:Govt Adv NL, Ms. Livika V. Sumi, Government Advocate Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, CGC

Preventive detention requires clear evidence of likelihood of bail and potential prejudicial activities; mere assertions are insufficient for lawful detention.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21

(C), 29, 60; Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Section 3(1) - Detention orders challenged on grounds of non-application of mind regarding detenues' judicial custody and likelihood of bail - Court found no cogent materials justifying detention despite existing custody - Detention orders quashed. (Paras 28-44)

(B) Preventive Detention - Judicial review - Detaining authority must demonstrate awareness of detenue's custody and likelihood of bail for valid detention - Mere ipse dixit statements insufficient for detention. (Paras 32-36)

(C) Advisory Board - Must adhere to legal standards in assessing detention necessity - Failure to consider relevant legal principles renders detention orders unsustainable. (Paras 42-43)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitions were filed by the wives and friends of the detenues, Mr. Jackiss and Mr. Tolong Wangsu, who were arrested on 24.05.2024 for alleged involvement in drug trafficking. Both were in judicial custody at the time of detention orders issued under the Act of 1988.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the detention orders lacked sufficient grounds, failing to establish that the detenues were likely to be released on bail and would engage in prejudicial activities.

Issues: The main issues were whether the detention orders reflected the existence of cogent materials justifying detention despite the detenues being in judicial custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detaining authority must provide clear evidence of the likelihood of bail and potential prejudicial activities for valid preventive detention.

Result: Both writ petitions allowed; detention orders quashed.

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 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1988 (for short, “the Act of 1988”).

4. The facts involved in the instant writ petition are that an FIR was lodged by the UBSI. Zasilie Angami of Narcotic Cell P.S., PHQ Kohima, Nagaland alleging inter alia that on 23.05.2024, the said officer along with accompanying staff from the Narcotic Cell P.S., PHQ Kohima were detailed for MVCP duty. While conducting routine checking of the vehicles at NH-2 near Agri-Link Road, in between Khuzama and Viswema at around 8.00 P.M., one Maruti Breeza SUV B/R No. AS11Y 3818 (White) with three occupants coming from Manipur were stopped for routine checking. The said occupants were, (1) Mr. Petok Konyak (2) Mr. Tolong Wangsu (3) Mr. Aman Pansa. The said Mr. Tolong Wangsu is the detenu for whom W.P.(Crl.)/6/2025 was filed.

5. Upon inspection being made of the vehicle, narcotic drugs suspected to be heroin concealed in 2 (two) sacks covered by king chilli and under the spare tyre cavity were detected. Information was immediately given to the superior officers i.e. O.C. Narcotic P.S. & SP (N&P). During the search of the vehicle 111 (one hundred eleven) soap boxes suspected to be containing heroin were recovered from the vehicle i.e. 54 (fifty four) soap boxes from the 2 (two) king chilli sacks and 57 (fifty seven) soap boxes from the spare tyre cavity. The suspected narcotic drugs were taken out, weighed separately and the total weight approximately was 1 Kg 259 grams and was duly seized. It is relevant to take note of that during the process of investigation, the detenu- Mr. Jackiss was arrested based on CDR analysis and the statement made by Mr. Tolong Wangsu who is the detenu in W.P.(Crl.)/6/2025.

6. The record further reveals that the detenu upon being arrested on 24.05.2024 from Senapati Town, Manipur was forwarded before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima on 25.05.2024. The Investigating Officer of Narcotic P.S. Case No. 09/2024 prayed for 6 (six) days police remand and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima vide an order dated 25.05.2024 allowed the prayer of the Investigating Officer and granted 6 (six) days police remand.

7. The record further reveals that on 01.07.2024, the Additional Director General of Police (L&O) & Chairman Screening Board PITNDPS Act, Nagaland submitted a proposal for detention of the detenu- Mr. Jackiss under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988. The grounds of detention in the proposal are reproduced herein under:

“1. The accused is having active involvement in the illicit trafficking as observed from the CDR analysis and Bank Statement analysis. Without keeping him in the preventive detention, the offender shall be moving freely and continuing the illicit traffic of NDPS. Wi

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