Preventive detention should not impede the regular trial process, and the withdrawal of a detention order for technical flaws does not preclude further action under the relevant law.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

The petitioner, having been put under preventive detention under Section 3 of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 by the order dated 18.10.2016 as issued by the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar and such detention having been ultimately confirmed in the order issued by the Governor on 02.12.2016, has preferred this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus while questioning his detention as being entirely illegal and unauthorised.

2. In the detention order dated 18.10.2016, it is, inter alia, indicated that the petitioner had been indulging into repeated crimes while being a member of militant outfit by the name of A'chick National Cooperation Army (ANCA) and had been involved in various criminal cases including Williamnagar P.S. No. 104(12)14 under Sections 120B/121/122/384 IPC; and Williamnagar P.S. No. 70(6) 16 under Sections 385/506 IPC read with Section 66A Information & Technology Act, 2000. In the grounds of detention, another indication was made that Chokpot P.S. No. 18(8) 2014 under Section 302/364/384/120(B) IPC read with Section 25 (1-A)/27(2) of the Arms Act was also registered against the petitioner and his associates.

3. While challenging his preventive detention, the petitioner has essentially averred that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities concerned inasmuch as in relation to Williamnagar P.S. No. 104(12)14 he had already been released on bail; and so far Williamnagar P.S. No. 70(6) 16 was concerned, no bail application was pending or filed by him before any court of law from the date of his arrest on 04.07.2016 until the date of detention order i.e., 18.10.2016. It has been averred in the petition that,-

"The preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate in connection with Williamnagar P.S. No. 104(12) 14 and 70(6)16 is highly arbitrary and suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind for the simple reason that as far as in relation to Williamnagar P.S. No. 104 (12) 14 is concerned, the Detenu had already been released on bail much before his arrest on 04.07.2016 in connection with the Williamnagar P.S. Case No. no. 70( 6) 16 under section 385/506 IPC read with section 66A Information &Technology Act, 2000 and as far as Williamnagar P.S. Case No. 70 (6) 16 is concerned, no bail application is pending or filed by the Detenu before any court of law from the date of his arrest on 04.07.2016 to 18th October 2016. Therefore there is total none application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the impugned order and also that the satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the impugned order under preventive detention law is nothing but ipse dixit of the said authority. Hence this Petition before this Hon'ble Court."

4. After the issuance of notice in this petition, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit seeking to justify the detention order of the petitioner for his connectivity with a militant outfit and for his involvement in the aforesaid cases of serious nature crimes.

5. In the first session sitting of the Court today, taking note of the grounds aforesaid, we had posed the queries to the learned Government Advocate on the basis whereof, the authorities had the reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of release of the petitioner on bail when he would assert that the bail application had not been moved. We had also referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases on this issue including the observations made in Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2015 in the case of Champion R. Sangma decided on 22.05.2015, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, inter alia, as under:

"In the present case, as already pointed out above, the appellant was under incarceration as he is implicated in as many as 8 cases. In fact till date he is in jail and has not been granted bail.

In view of the above, it was for the respondents to satisfy the Court as to