The court held that the withdrawal of a previous writ petition does not bar a new petition concerning personal liberty, emphasizing the importance of fundamental rights.

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge their arrest made on 13.03.2024 by respondent No.2/National Investigation Agency („NIA‟). The petitioners also seek quashing of remand orders Signature Not Verified made by the learned Special Court, whereby the petitioners have been remanded to NIA custody, and subsequently, to judicial custody where they are presently lodged.

2. Notice on this petition was issued vide order dated 02.07.2024; consequent whereupon the main contesting party, viz. respondent No.2/NIA has filed their counter-affidavit dated 11.08.2024.

3. Briefly, the petitioners have been arrested by the NIA, alleging that they are in involved in a trans-national conspiracy hatched by a foreign-based leadership of terror outfits, to exploit the ethnic unrest and to execute terrorist attacks in the State of Manipur; and to wage war against the Government of India. The petitioners have accordingly been arrested on 13.03.2024 in case FIR No. RC-23/ 2023/NIA/DLI dated 19.07.2023 registered under sections 120-B/ 121-A/122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sections 18/

18-B/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

4. According to the NIA, petitioner No.1 is the self-styled Army Chief of the United National Liberation Front („UNLF‟) and petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are his associates, who are alleged to have been involved in raising funds for the UNLF (by committing extortion), as well as recruiting cadres and procuring weapons to incite violence in Manipur.

5. By way of a preliminary objection raised in the counter-affidavit, the NIA submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, since the grounds of challenge raised hereby have already been agitated by the petitioners by way of an earlier writ petition bearing W.P. (CRL.) No. 975/2024; which writ petition was subsequently dismissed as Signature Not Verified withdrawn vide order dated 16.04.2024 after notice had been issued and after lengthy arguments were heard by a Division Bench of this court.

6. The NIA accordingly submits that the principle of „constructive res-

judicata‟ applies to the present case; and that a second writ petition based on the same facts and agitating the same cause of action is not maintainable. It is further submitted that even if the second writ petition cites some additional grounds, those grounds were available to the petitioners at the time of hearing of the first writ petition and ought to have been raised at that time, but since that was not done, those grounds cannot be cited as the basis for filing a second writ petition.

7. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the NIA, this court has heard Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned SPP appearing for the NIA, as well as Mr. Siddhartha Borgohain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at length on the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition.

8. At the outset, it is beneficial to extract the prayers made in the earlier writ petition bearing W.P. (CRL.) No. 975/2024 that had been filed by the petitioners, which read as follows :

“a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus thereby setting aside the arrest of the Petitioners which was in violative (sic, violation) of the Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory provisions contained in the Code;

b) Pass any other order/ order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit in favour of the Petitioners to meet the ends of justice.”

Signature Not Verified

9. Notice on the earlier writ petition was issued on 22.03.2024, whereafter the matter is stated to have been argued at some length before a Division Bench of this court; but was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.04.2024, with the Division Bench observing as follows :

“1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to agitate the