Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Kh. Nobin Singh, A. Bimol Singh, JJ.
Sinam Shambhu - Appellant
Versus
Special Secretary (Home), Government Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Cril.) No. 8 of 2021
Decided On : 09-08-2021
Detention - Illegal Drugs Transportation - ND & PS Act - [22(c)/60(3) & 29 ND & PS Act, 22(c)/29 ND & PS Act read with 60(3) ND & PS Act] - The court discussed the legality of the detention order and confirmation order issued under the ND & PS Act. The key legal provisions discussed were the requirement for the grounds of detention to be formulated before passing the order of detention and the indication of the likelihood of the detainee being released on bail. The court emphasized the need for the detaining authority to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was involved in the transportation of illegal drugs and was detained under the ND & PS Act. The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention order and confirmation order on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority had not formulated the grounds of detention before passing the detention order, and had failed to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in preventive detention cases.
Issues: Validity of detention order, Formulation of grounds of detention, Likelihood of detainee being released on bail
Ratio Decidendi: The detention order must be based on formulated grounds of detention and should indicate the likelihood of the detainee being released on bail. The failure to adhere to procedural requirements renders the detention order illegal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the detention order and confirmation order were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not required for any other case.
JUDGMENT
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.:--
[1] Heard Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Shri B.R. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India.
[2] The validity and correctness of the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 and the confirmation order dated 25-06-2021 issued by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur is under challenged in this writ petition.
[3.1] The allegations as stated in the grounds of detention, in short, are that the petitioner is a resident of Kakching Lamkhai, Kakching District, Manipur and is involved in transportation of illegal drugs. He is the kingpin in the supply of WY tablets in Manipur by co-ordinating with suppliers from Moreh; transporters and sellers at Imphal. He was arrested in connection with two cases registered under FIR No.19(2)2020 TBL P.S. u/s 22(c)/60(3) & 29 ND & PS Act and FIR No. 23(3)2021 KCG P.S. u/s 22(c)/29 ND & PS Act read with 60(3) ND & PS Act.
[3.2] The first case was registered when Shri Yengkhom Bikram Singh was arrested by a team of Thoubal Police Station on 06-02-2020 along with seizure of a total of 2,24,204 numbers of WY tablets weighing about 22.05 Kg. During the course of investigation, it was revealed by him that the said WY tablets were transported by him under the instruction of the petitioner. So far as the second case is concerned, it was registered when Shri Irengbam Somorjit Singh was arrested by a team of Kakching Police Station on 15-03-2021 along with seizure of WY tablets weighing a total of about 5 Kg from his possession. From his statement recorded by the police, it was revealed that the consignment of WY tablets which were seized by the police, was to be transported to Guwahati by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by a team of Kakching Police Station on 15-04-2021 and when he was interrogated, it was disclosed by the petitioner that he was the partner of Shri Irengbam Somorjit Singh in the transportation of WY tablets and that they had transported drugs in the past as well. While the petitioner was in custody, the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 was passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. The grounds of detention were furnished to him on 29-04-2021 with the averment that the same were furnished to him after 8 (eight) days from the date of detention on account of the exceptional circumstances arising due to Covid-19 Pandemic. In the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in the near future and considering all his past activities, it was very likely that he would continue to act in the manner causing a threat to the society. The petitioner was also informed that he had the right to make representations to the Government of Manipur as well as the Central Government against the said order of detention.
[4] Being aggrieved by the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 and the confirmation order dated 25-06-2021 passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning their legality on various grounds.
[5] An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 reiterating the allegations as stated in the grounds of detention and in addition thereto, it has been stated that the sponsoring authority vide its letter dated 20-04-2021 furnished the reliable documents to the detaining authority for detention of the petitioner, on the basis of which the order of detention was issued by the detaining authority. It has further been stated that in order to make effective representation by the petitioner, the detaining authority formulated the grounds of detention in the form of a letter on 29-04-2021 in terms of the provisions of sub-section 3 of the Act.
[6] During the course of hearing, Shri Ch. Ngongo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his
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....
Preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act is justified if the detaining authority reasonably believes the individual poses a threat to public safety, even if they are already in judicial custody.
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
The main legal point established is that in preventive detention, prompt action is crucial, and the detaining authority must consider all vital facts influencing the decision to detain. Unreasonable ....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
Preventive detention orders must consider all vital documents, including bail orders, as their omission can invalidate the order.
The main legal point established is that the impugned detention order was based on specific cases and witness statements, and the delay in issuing the order was properly explained by the detaining Au....
The failure to consider the orders of bail granted to the detenu by the competent Court vitiated the detention order, as it deprived the detaining authority of the opportunity to consider relevant ma....
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
