An order of preventive detention against a person already in custody is vitiated if it fails to demonstrate the authority's awareness of such custody and lacks cogent, material evidence justifying that there is a real possibility of release on bail and subsequent engagement in prejudicial activities.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

(Y. Longkumer, J.)

Heard Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent No.2/Union of India.

2. In the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention imposed upon the detenue Aloto Aye, by the Impugned Detention Order dated 23^rd January, 2026, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland by invoking powers under provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (herein after referred to as NSA for short).

3. The petitioner is the wife of the detenue who is presently detained under the NSA and lodged at District Jail, Dimapur.

4. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 17.12.2026 stating that on 16.12.2025 a telephonic information was received at the West P.S Dimapur informing that on 15.12.2025 unknown miscreants entered the residence of one Mr. Imlimeren and forcefully abducted him and 4 (four) of his friends and some gunshots were also heard. During the inquiry it was ascertained that the unknown miscreants belong to the NSCN(K) group. Accordingly, the West PS Case No.0122/25 U/S 3(5)/140(3)/127(8)/308(2)/61(1) of the BNS R/W 25(1) (A)/27(2) Arms Act R/W Section 7 /8 of the Nagaland Security Regulations was registered. During interrogation the name of the detenue was revealed by one of the co-accused. Accordingly, the detenue was arrested on 29.12.2025 in connection with the aforementioned case and was forwarded to judicial custody.

5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland vide letter dated 22.01.2026 put up a proposal for detention of the detenue before the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland. The Commissioner of Police & District Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland, by the Impugned Order dated 23.01.2026 issued the detention order against the detenue under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 and directed that the detenue be detained and kept at the Central Jail, Dimapur.

6. Thereafter, the Government of Nagaland vide order dated 02.02.2026 approved the detention of the detenue. The detenue submitted a representation dated 17.03.2026 against his detention order praying for revocation of the detention order dated 23.01.2026. The Government of Nagaland in the Home Department by an order dated 24.03.2026 rejected the representation of the detenue. The Central Government also rejected the representation which was conveyed vide wireless message dated 24.03.2026.

7. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland vide Order dated 14.04.2026 issued confirmation order detaining the detenue for another period of 3 (three) months from 23.04.2026 till 22.07.2026.

8. Mr. A. Sophie, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned detention order of the detenue deserved the interference of this Court, in view of the fact that the provisions of the NSA had been grossly violated in the instant case.

9. The learned counsel submits that the detention order dated 23.01.2026 does not mention anywhere that the detaining authority had reasons to believe that there is real possibility that the detenue is likely to be released on bail.

10. Learned counsel also submits that the detenue has been booked under non- bailable sections and he had not move any application for bail. Therefore, the