Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR, LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, JJ.
Smt. Heisnam Seema Devi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(Cril.) No. 9 of 2018
Decided On : 23-10-2018
Habeas Corpus - Detention Order - National Security Act, 1980, Section 3(2) - 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A. Act, 5 Expl. Subs. Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and the grounds of detention dated 3rd May, 2018, which referred to various sections of the 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A. Act, 5 Expl. Subs. Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act. The court highlighted the detenue's involvement in unlawful activities and the specific incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention.
Fact of the Case:
The detenue challenged the detention order based on the police report alleging his involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and public order. The detenue was already arrested for offenses under various acts and was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenue's conduct was prejudicial to the security of the State and public order, based on the grounds of detention and the detaining authority's observations. The court also noted the detenue's involvement in various unlawful activities and incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the detention order, the detenue's right to make a representation, and the sufficiency of the documents supplied for the detenue's effective representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detention order was based on valid grounds and the detenue's conduct posed a threat to the security of the State and public order. However, the court also found that the detenue's right to make an effective representation was infringed due to the supply of illegible documents, leading to a violation of his constitutional rights.
Final Decision: The court quashed the detention order and directed the detenue's release, citing the infringement of his right to make an effective representation due to the supply of illegible documents.
1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed challenging the detention order dated 30.04.2018. The detention order is based on the police report placed before the District Magistrate, Imphal East and in it is alleged that the detenue is acting in the manner prejudicial to security of State and maintenance to public order. While passing the order of detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, reliance is placed on the grounds of detention dated 3rd May, 2018. The detaining authority on the basis of the report was aware that the detenue who was already arrested for the offences in relation to FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C) A. Act, 5 Expl. Subs. Act & 21 (a)(b) ND & PS Act. The detenue was handed over to the officer-in-charge of the police station and was taken to judicial custody and lodged in the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. The detaining authority, however, was of the view that the conduct of the detenue over a period of time was acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and therefore, thought it fit to invoke Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detaining authority in the detention order observed as follows :
“Whereas, the accused person has filed a bail application dated 21st April, 2018 in the Court of Special Judge, ND & PS, Manipur and on the basis of material placed before me, I am satisfied that Shri Sanabam Gunajit Mangang @ Ngongo @ Laba (40 yrs) S/o S. Dabaljit Mangang of Uripok Kabrabam Leikai, P.S. Imphal, District-lmphal West, Manipur is likely to be released on bail in the near future since the person has applied bail application in the Court of Special Judge, ND & PS, Manipur;
Now, therefore, I, Th. Chitra Devi, District Magistrate, lmphal East District, Manipur in exercise of the power conferred upon me by Sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H (Pt-I) dated 7th February, 2018 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in police custody be detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 until further orders.”
2. The detention order dated 04.05.2018 and the grounds of detention running to four pages was served with annexures of documents on the detenue. The list of documents supplied are referred to in para 11 of the grounds of detention which reads as follows :
“11. Copies of the following documents which forms the basis of the grounds of your detention are enclosed herewith for your ready reference;
i. Your interrogation statement recorded on 19.03.2018.
ii. Statement of complaint Jem, Ch. Bedanta Meitei, JC No. 811 of 7th MR now attached with CDO/IE, in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21 (a)(b) ND & PS Act.
iii. Statement of seizure witness Rfm. No. 1710209 S. Charanjit of 7th IRB now attached with CDO/IE, in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A. Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act.
iv. Statement of seizure witness Rfm No. 6070249 Md. Abdul Qudus of 6th IRB, now attached with CDO/IE in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20U/A(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act.
v. Statement of seizure witness, Wahengbam (O) Usharani Devi (36 yrs.) W/o. Ramananda Singh @ Luwangba @ Rousow of Kontha Khabam Makha Leikai recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C in c/w FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs. Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act.
vi. Copy of arrest memo dated 13.3.2018.
vii. Copy of Seizure Memo dated 13.3.2018 at 08.50 am and seizure Memo dated 13.3.2018 at 09.30 pm.
viii. Copy of FIR No. 43(03)18 HNG PS U/s 20UA(P)A. Act, 25(I-C)A.Act, 5 Expl. Subs Act & 21(a)(b) ND & PS Act.
ix. Copy of Msg. from Spl. PP to Spl Court NDPS asking for Bail objection report of the I.O. of the case.
x. Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. S.O. 3440(E) dated 13th November, 2013.
xi. Home Dept, Govt. of Manipur Order
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
