Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
L.K.Mohapatra, N.Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Wahengbam Ongbi Usharani - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur - Resopndent
Writ Petition(CRIL) No.11 of 2014
Decided On : 09-05-2014
National Security Act - Detention Order - 3 of National Security Act, 1980 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 - The court discussed the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980, specifically Section 3, and its application in the case. The court highlighted the repeated arrests and releases on bail of the petitioner's husband for similar offenses, leading to the District Magistrate's apprehension that he would be released on bail again, influencing the decision to uphold the detention order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East, under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, based on the repeated arrests and releases on bail of her husband for similar offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate's apprehension that the husband of the petitioner would be released on bail again, based on his previous releases on bail for similar offenses, was justified, and therefore dismissed the writ application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, based on the husband's history of arrests and releases on bail for similar offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the repeated arrests and releases on bail of the petitioner's husband for similar offenses, leading to the District Magistrate's apprehension that he would be released on bail again, justifying the detention order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application, upholding the detention order based on the husband's history of arrests and releases on bail for similar offenses.
L.K. Mohapatra, ACJ.:-
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Wahengbam Ramananda Singh. She has filed this writ application challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East dated 08.01.2014 directing the detention of the husband of the petitioner under Sub Section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980(for short ‘NSA’).
2. From the grounds of detention, it appears that the husband of the petitioner joined a banned organization namely United National Liberation Front (UNLF in short) in Sept.1994 and started working for the said organization. He was arrested once in 1996 and had been released on bail. Subsequently, on three more occasions, i.e. once in 1997, once in 1999 and once in 2012, he had been arrested and released on bail. On 4.12.2013 he was arrested for the 5th time and two Mobile Handsets with Sim cards had been seized from his possession. He was handed over to the local police and FIR No.91(12)13 HNG P.S. was registered for commission of offence u/s 365/447/120-B IPC read with Section 25(1-C) Arms Act and was remanded to police custody upto 18.12.2013. On 18.12.2013 when he was produced before the Court for judicial remand, he was again formally arrested in connection with FIR Case No.226 (7)2009 IPS for commission of offence registered u/s 17/20/UA(P)Act and was again remanded to police custody till 24.12.2013. He was again formally arrested in connection with FIR Case No.78(2) 2011 IPS, u/s 365/368/34 IPC read with Section 16(1-B)/20 UA(P) A. Act and Section 5 of Expl. Subs. Act and was remanded to police custody till 09.1.2014. While he was continuing in police custody, the impugned order of detention was passed on 8.1.2014 and the District Magistrate, Imphal East recorded his subjective satisfaction to the effect that the husband of the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in near future as in similar cases bails are granted by the Court.
3. Challenging the above order of detention, Shri Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the husband of the petitioner was in custody and had not moved any application for bail and none of the co-accused persons had been released on bail, the 3 subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate referring to a bail order not related to the husband of the petitioner or any of the co-accused, cannot be sustained in law. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on a decision of the Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2011) 5 SCC 244 and another Decision of the same Court in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Vs. State of Manipur : (2012) 7 SCC 181.
4. Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as well as of the Union of India, submitted that the husband of the petitioner is involved in commission of similar offences being a member of UNLF on several occasions and he had been arrested on several occasions in between 1996 to 2012 and had been released on bail. Therefore, the apprehension of the District Magistrate that in the event the husband of the petitioner moves an application for bail he shall also be released on bail, is based on the fact that for commission of similar offences the husband of the petitioner had earlier been released on bail on more than one occasions. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the order of detention.
5. From the grounds of detention at Annexure-N/2 the following facts emerge and they are not in dispute-
(a) The husband of the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.96 for commission of offence u/s 121/121-A of IPC read with Section 25 UA (P)A. Act & Section 13 UA(P)Act. He was released on bail on 21.3.1997;
(b) The husband of the petitioner was arrested in April, 1997 for commission of offence u/s 10/13 UA(P)Act and Section 25(I-B) Arms Act and was released on bail on 20.11.1997.
(c) The husband of the petitioner was arrested on 01.12.
AI
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
