Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH KOHIMA BENCH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
H. Absalom, S/o – Happymoon – Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for habeas corpus. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of detention. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. confirmation of detention order. (Para 10 , 15) |
| 4. arguments by parties regarding detention. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court observes legality of detention. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. rights of detainee under article 22(5). (Para 35 , 36 , 39 , 47) |
| 7. court's decision to set aside detention. (Para 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Choudhury, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus is preferred by the petitioner who is a brother of a detenu, Sri Rockson Poumai, who has been detained in the Central Jail, Dimapur pursuant to an Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Political Branch, Home Department [the respondent no. 2] 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]. Assail is also made to an Order dated 12.08.2025, passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. By the Order dated 12.08.2025, th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
