A preventive detention order against a person already in judicial custody is invalid if the order does not explicitly record the detaining authority's awareness of the custody and their subjective satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the detenu's release on bail and subsequent indulgence in prejudicial activities.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

(Rajesh Mazumdar, J)

We have heard the learned counsel, Mr. P. Surien, appearing for the petitioner, and we have also heard the learned Government Advocate, Ms. Inaholi.

2. Notice in this case was issued on 22.04.2026, requiring the Government Advocate to produce the records and also to file an affidavit. The affidavit on behalf of the State respondents has been filed, and the learned Government Advocate has produced the records.

3. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the detention imposed upon the petitioner by the order dated 27.02.2026, passed by the District Commissioner and Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland, by invoking powers under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980.

4. The facts as revealed from the records are that an FIR was lodged on 20.01.2026 with the Diphupar Police regarding a kidnapping, an attempt of illegal extortion and causing hurt and grievous hurt to the husband of the informant. Accordingly, Diphupar P.S. Case No. 04/2026 under Section 140 (2),(3)/351/308 (2)/131/127 (2)/3 (5) of BNS, read with 7/8 NSR was registered. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR on 24.01.2026. Later, Section 111 and Section 113 of the BNS and Section 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 were also added by order dated 02.02.2026 on prayers made by the investigating authority.

5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chumoukedima, Nagaland, acting as the Sponsoring Authority, had forwarded a proposal along with grounds to the District Commissioner, Dimapur, proposing appropriate action, imposing preventive detention of the petitioner herein, be passed under the National Security Act, 1980. The proposal dated 02.02.2026 was taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Detaining Authority’) and the Detaining Authority had passed an order on 27.02.2026 directing that the petitioner should be detained and kept in Central Jail, Dimapur. The petitioner was served a copy of the aforesaid detention order along with the grounds of detention, accompanied by schedules/annexures appended thereto, and the receipt of the same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 28.02.2026, while he was still in custody.

6. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the petitioner filed a representation on 06.03.2026 to the Detaining Authority, through the Senior Superintendent of Central Jail, Dimapur, with copies of the representation marked to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Internal Security-II Division, Ministry of Home Affairs and other concerned authorities, whereby it was prayed to revoke/cancel the impugned detention order dated 27.02.2026. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, who was the approving authority, approved the detention of the petitioner by the order dated 10.03.2026, directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in Central Jail, Dimapur, for an initial period of 3 months with effect from the date of detention, that is, till 26.05.2026. It was further observed that the period of detention would be later reviewed as required under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. By an order dated 12.03.2026, the representation filed by the petitio