IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Kh. Nobin Singh, Ahanthem Bimol Singh, JJ.
Laishram (Ongbi) Hemabati - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Manipur and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (Cril.) No. 10 of 2020
Decided On : 09-02-2021
National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) – Anticipatory bail - Assigned post of Chairman - Order of Detention - Allegations as narrated in grounds of detention are in short that detenu joined banned and outlawed organization called Communist Party faction as an over-ground member in early part of through and worked under his command as a courier - On he was arrested from by a police team in connection with a case under FIR Imphal PS u/s. 10/13 UA(P) Act but was released on bail - After detenu having been released from jail he resumed his work - On detenu was again arrested by a team of CDO-Imphal West from his residence in connection with a case Patsoi PS u/s. 10/13 UA (P) Act but was released on bail by Court - After his being released on bail he resumed the work command of as a courier and started supplying arms and ammunitions - Held, it is clearly seen that it is nowhere mentioned therein that District Magistrate was satisfied tha detenu was likely to be released on bail and only in the grounds of detention it was mentioned about it - However there are no materials on record to show that at time when order of detention was passed by District Magistrate a bail application moved by detenu pertaining to present case was pending before appropriate Court and that a copy thereof was placed before her by sponsoring authority nor has any co-accused been released on bail - Grant of bail would have been possible only when a bail application had been filed by or on behalf of detenu - It is not so in present case - District Magistrate in her affidavit filed before this Court did not say anything about materials on basis of which she was satisfied that detenu was likely to be released on bail and therefore it is absolutely clear that principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India have not been followed by District Magistrate - Petition is Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri N. Mahendra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
2. The validity and correctness of the order dated 03-09-2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal-East District under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 is under challenge in this writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner who is the wife of Shri Laishram Mangoljao @ Lamyanba Khuman @ Hirachandra @ Pibarel @ Jagadish Koirela @ L.K. @ Shamu, the detenu herein.
3.1. The allegations as narrated in the grounds of detention are, in short, that the detenu joined the banned and outlawed organization called Kangleipak Communist Party-Leibakmacha faction as an over-ground member in the early part of 2000 through Shri Yumnam Nilachandra Singh and worked under his command as a courier. On 28-07-2000, he was arrested from Uripok Thokchom Leikai by a police team in connection with a case under FIR No. 263(7)2000 Imphal PS u/s. 10/13 UA(P) Act but was released on bail. After the detenu having been released from the jail, he resumed his work. On 21-01-2001, the detenu was again arrested by a team of CDO-Imphal West from his residence in connection with a case under FIR No. 5(1)2001 Patsoi PS u/s. 10/13 UA (P) Act but was released on bail by the Court. After his being released on bail, he resumed the work under the command of Shri Laishram Tomba Singh as a courier and started supplying arms and ammunitions. Over and above, he carried out prejudicial activities like extortion of money from the general public, Government offices, etc. till sometime in the first week of July, 2007 when he went to Shillong and attended the election of the new office bearers of the organization. He was elected as the Chairman and thereafter, he along with his family members, took asylum at different places like Shillong, Guwahati, Delhi, etc. in order to evade arrest by the security forces. On 23-07-2007, he was arrested from a place near Azadpur Fruit Mandi, New Delhi by the Delhi Police and was brought back to Manipur on 01-08-2007 by a team of Manipur Police. Although he was remanded into judicial custody, on 09-08-2017 he was released on bail by the Court.
3.2. After he being released from the jail, he could not stay a longer with the family members. He resumed his work and took shelter at different places including Tamenglong, Ukhrul and Lakhipur (Assam). On 04-05-2008, the detenu formed a new faction of KCP called Kangleipak Communist Party (Military Council-Lamyanba Khuman) under his Chairmanship. Thereafter, he took shelter at different places outside the State of Manipur like Tamil Nadu, Nepal, etc. and directed his subordinates to carry out extortion from the general public, Government offices, schools, etc. for which his cadres carried out about 10 (ten) crimes detailed in the grounds of detention. In connection with the said cases, many of his colleagues and close associates as mentioned in the grounds of detention were arrested. The detenu while he was at Litang Kalipokhri, Nepal, contacted the General Secretary of KCP (PWG) and joined his organization, for which he was assigned the post of the Chairman.
3.3. The avowed aim and object of the organization is to secede the State of Manipur from the Union of India and to create an independent, sovereign, socialist State of Manipur for which the organization started procuring arms and ammunition from various countries. In the pursuit of their objectives, the members of the organization committed series of heinous crimes such as murder, dacoit, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom etc. from different parts of Manipur. The ring leaders sought foreign assistance and established links with countries like Bangladesh, Mayanmar, etc. In consideration of the large scale prejudicial activities indulged by the organization, it was declared as an unlawful Association by the Government of India.
3.4. Aft
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the detention of a person already in custody and the necessity of keeping such....
Preventive detention requires clear, compelling reasons linked to public order; mere apprehensions are insufficient.
Detention can be legally imposed on individuals already in jail if justified by circumstances and substantial evidence of future prejudicial activity.
Preventive detention for a person in custody is valid only if the detaining authority explicitly records awareness of the custody status, assesses the real possibility of release on bail, and conclud....
order of detention - Execution of - It transpires that impugned order was issued by detaining authority on 22nd November 2019 and same was confirmed by Government under Section 17(1) of Act 1978 for ....
The court emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to procedural requirements in preventive detention cases, including the formulation of grounds of detention and indication of the likelihood o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.