The Detaining Authority must observe safeguards meticulously, including the requirement to record subjective satisfaction on the possibility of the detenu being released on bail, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

R.R. Prasad, J.

This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, (respondent no.2) whereby and whereunder respondent no.2 in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 passed the order of detention against the petitioner after being satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and to maintain public order it has become necessary to do so.

2. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed that the detenu having been enrolled in the 4th India Reserve Battalion as Rifleman had been posted under different Police stations. During that course he came into contact with one Md. Atao Rahaman @ Atabur @ Md. Ataur Rahaman, an important member of the coordination committee of underground outfits (conglomerate of six valley-based underground outfits) in short known as ‘CORCOM’ which had been declared as an unlawful organisation by the Government of India, who instigated the detenu to carry out activities which is prejudicial to the security of the State as well as public order. The detenu having agreed to do so exploded hand grenade at the northern fencing of 40 Assam Rifles, Lilong Post and also at the Angel Ditigal Service, Uripok for which two FIRs bearing FIR No. 119(12)2014 LIL-PS registered under sections 307/34 of the IPC, 3 Expl.Subs. Act and 16(1) (b)/20 UA(P) Act as well as FIR No.452(12)2014 Imphal P.S. registered under sections 121/121A/307/325/326/506/427/34 of the IPC, 3 Expl.Subs. Act & 16/20 UA(P) Act were lodged. For committing such offences the detenu was paid a sum of money of Rs.11,000/- and that on 19.5.2015 at about 8.00 PM, the detenu was arrested in connection with City P.S. Case No.68(05)2015 registered under section 121/121-A of the IPC, 20/16(1)(b) UA (P) Act, 25(1)(a)(1-B)A. Act and 4/5 Expl. Subs. Act. Subsequently he was remanded in connection with the aforesaid two cases. The detaining authority after recording that the detenu after availing facilities of bail would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention on 23.06.2015.

3. A copy of the said detention order was served along with grounds of detention upon the detenu while he was lodged in Jail. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 4.7.2015. Subsequently it was confirmed on 31.7.2015. Having receipt of the detention order, the detenu submitted his representation on 8.7.2015, which was received by the District Magistrate on the same day, however the State Govt. rejected it on 15.7.2015. The State Govt. forwarded the representation to the Central Govt. who received it on 8.8.2015 and rejected on 13.7.2015. The said orders of detention, its approval as well as confirmation have been challenged on several grounds.

4. Mr.Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did confine his argument with respect to only one ground, which is with respect to non-recording of the satisfaction by the Detaining Authority of possibility being there of the accused of releasing on bail. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the order of detention was passed while the detenu was in custody but the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention never recorded its satisfaction that the detenu, an accused of a case in which bail application had been filed, is likely to be released on bail; rather, the Detaining Authority has only recorded that the detenu has filed bail application and wherever such satisfaction of the Detaining Authority of the detenu being likely to be released on bail, is not there that order of detention becomes bad in view of the decision rendered in the case of Union of India - Vrs - Paul Manickam & Anr, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342 and also in a case of Kamarunissa Vrs - U