Preventive detention orders against individuals already in judicial custody are invalid unless supported by cogent materials establishing a real possibility of release on bail and ensuring safety against subsequent prejudicial acts; subjective satisfaction cannot rely solely on unsupported assertions by the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Mhasilezo Rote, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner in the instant proceedings is the wife of one Shri Dauda (detenu) who by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the Detention Order dated 14.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Peren; the Government Approval Order dated 21.04.2025 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland and the Confirmation Order dated 11.07.2025 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.

3. From a perusal of the present writ petition, it reveals that an FIR was filed by one Kedidaung Sephe alleging about the disappearance of 2 (two) staff members from their office, K&J Project Private Limited located at Keletzai Colony, Ward No. 2. It was also inter alia stated in the said FIR that these 2 (two) persons namely, Mr. Bamdev Rout and Md. Irfan Ali were last seen on the office premises on 23.03.2025 at around 11.00 A.M. to 11.30 AM. The informant requested the Officer-in-Charge of Peren Police Station to initiate an investigation into the disappearance of the said two (2) persons.

4. On the basis of the said FIR, Peren P.S. Case No. 003/2025 was registered on 25.03.2025. The husband of the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2025 and the case was registered under Section 140(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7 of the Nagaland Security Regulation, 1962.

5. The records further reveal that on 14.04.2025, the husband of the petitioner was put under detention in terms with Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short “the Act of 1980”). On the same day a proposal was submitted to the Home Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima seeking the approval from the State Government under Section 3(4) of the Act of 1980 informing of the detention of the husband of the petitioner.

6. We find it very pertinent to take note of the Grounds of Detention which is a part of the Order dated 14.04.2025. Taking into account its relevance, the same is reproduced herein under:

“GROUND OF DETENTION

NO. PRN/CON-7/2016/141

Dated, Peren the 14 April 2025

SHRI DAUDA, SS CAPT., NSCN (U), S/O LT. RAMGENG, AGE-42, R/O OF NCHANGRAM VILLAGE, DISTRICT-PEREN, PO/PS- TENING, P/ADD- NEIPHROLIE COLONY, CHUMOUKEDIMA UNDER NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980.

Whereas, the undersigned has made Detention Order against you under the provision of the National Security Act, 1980.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 5 of the said Act, the undersigned hereby inform you that the said detention order has been made against you on the following ground:

a) Security of the State of Nagaland.

b) Maintenance of Public Order.

The particulars which have bearing on the above two matters are specified in the schedules attached.

You are also informed that you have the option to make a representation to the Detaining Authority, Central Government and State Government through the concerned Jail authorities. You have also a right to claim a personal hearing before the Advisory Board constituted by the State Government under the aforesaid Act.”

7. It is also relevant to take note of the Schedul