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) 489

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
Kakheto Sema, Budi Habung, JJ.
Smti Ngapnon R/o Longwa Wasa - Appellant 
Vs.
The State Of Nagaland And Ors. - Respondent 
W.P.(Crl.)/3/2025
Decided On : 24-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ALEMWAPANG AO, PAKINRICHAPBO, M ANYEI, Y S PHOM
For the Respondent: GOVT ADV NL

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.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Sections 3(1) and 9(f) - Writ petition challenging detention orders issued under the PITNDPS Act - Detenue was apprehended with a significant quantity of suspected heroin and subsequently detained for preventive measures - The detaining authority justified detention based on the likelihood of the detenue engaging in further illicit activities if released - Procedural safeguards were claimed to have been adhered to by the authorities. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 30, 41)

(B) Preventive Detention - The court emphasized that preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and must comply with constitutional safeguards - The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is paramount in determining the necessity of detention. (Paras 35, 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of the detenue, who was arrested with 81 soap cases of suspected heroin. The detention orders were issued based on the belief that the detenue posed a threat to public health and safety due to his involvement in drug trafficking. (Paras 3, 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found no procedural lapses in the issuance of the detention orders and upheld the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventive detention. (Paras 41, 42)

Issues: The main issues included whether the detention was justified given the detenue's judicial custody and whether procedural safeguards were followed. (Paras 9, 10, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the detenue engaging in further illicit activities justified the preventive detention, despite the absence of a bail application. (Paras 30, 39)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Budi Habung, J.

Heard Mr. Alemwapang Ao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi Wotsa, learned Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Mr. Z. N. Ngullie, learned CGC for respondent No. 4.

2. This writ petition is filed by Smti. Ngapnon, who claims to be a friend of Mr. Aphot Sheipha (detenue), challenging the following orders:

(i) Detention Order No. CON/PITNDPS/30/2024/151 dated 17.08.2024, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, under which the detenue has been detained in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PITNDPS Act, 1988);

(ii) Confirmation Order No. CON/PITNDPS/30/2024/224 dated 18.11.2024, passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, confirming the Detention Order dated 17.08.2024, thereby extending the period of detention for another three months, effective from 20.11.2024 until 17.02.2025, in exercise of powers under Clause (f) of Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988; and

(iii) Order No. CON/PITNDPS/30/2024/52 dated 14.02.2025, passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, whereby the detention of the detenue has been further extended for another three months, effective from 18.02.2025 until 17.05.2025, in exercise of powers under Clause (f) of Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: On 11.07.2024, a written FIR was received from the 43rd Assam Rifle stating that, based on specific input received from their own source regarding a likely move of a drug consignment on the Niuland-Dimapur Road, on 10.07.2024, at around 2200 hours, a MVCP was launched in the general area of Niuland Dimapur Bridge. At around 2315 hours, a vehicle, Hyundai Eon AS01AY 7288, was intercepted. Upon searching the vehicle, three individuals were found in possession of 81 soap cases of suspected heroin. Consequently, the three persons, including the present detenue, were apprehended and taken to their camp for questioning. Thereafter, all three apprehended individuals were handed over to the Diphupar police station along with the seized consignment on 11.07.2024. Upon receipt of the written FIR, the OC DPR PS registered a case under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, and initiated an investigation. Accordingly, the apprehended accused persons, including the present detenue, were arrested in the presence of witnesses.

4. During the course of the investigation, the arrested persons were examined, and the seized drugs were sealed and packed in the presence of a Magistrate before being sent for FSL examination. Upon examination, the detenue narrated the entire event leading to their arrest and admitted that the seized consignment of 81 cases of suspected heroin, locally known as sunflower, belonged to him. The detenue stated that he had purchased it from one Reipei of Senapati, supposedly to be delivered to one Jailong Alem of Khammoi village. However, during the process, they were apprehended by the 43rd Assam Rifle and Police from the Referral Hospital Bridge. The arrested persons, including the detenue, were subsequently sent to judicial remand.

5. The detenue also disclosed that he began selling drugs during the first week of January 2024 when he went to Senapati and purchased two soap cases of drugs (sunflowers) from his friend Reipei for an amount of Rs. 65,000 per soap case, totaling Rs. 1,30,000 (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand), which he sold to Jailong Alem of Khammoi Village for Rs. 70,000 (Rupees seventy thousand) per soap case. After that, he travelled to Senapati multiple times. The second time he went on 28.02.2024 and purchased five soap cases for Rs. 35,000 (Rupees thirty-five thousand) per soap case, which he sold to Jailong Alem. The third time, on 12.04.2024, he purchased 43 soap cases; the fourth time, on 29

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