Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
L.S. Jamir, Devashis Baruah
Smti. K. Athiphro D/o Kokho – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
D. Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. Imti Longjem, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner who is detained under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1988”) has challenged the Detention Order passed by the respondent No. 2 bearing No. CON/PITNDPS/03/2025/38 dated 04.02.2025 (herein after referred to as, “the Detention Order”) under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988.
3. The facts involved in the instant case is that the petitioner herein was arrested by an Special Operation Team from her rented residence at Naga Colony, Burma Camp, Dimapur on 07.09.2024 along with another person namely Shri Kashiprii Rakuyio. Thereupon, the petitioner was produced before the Dimapur East Police Station wherein a Suo-Moto FIR dated 07.09.2024 was lodged. It was alleged in the said FIR that during the search operation of the rented house of the petitioner along with Shri Kashiprii
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 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 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 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....
Preventive detention requires strict justification and cannot be enacted merely on apprehension of future crimes, especially when bail has previously been granted.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
