Ruhida Begum vs State of Manipur - Represented by the Secretary(Home), Government of Manipur, & Anr.

Heard Mr. M.I Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Vashum, learned GA for the State.

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention of her brother, namely, Md. Junet under the National Security Act vide order dated 6-2-2017. Though several grounds have been raised in challenging the illegality and validity of the detention order dated 6-2-2017, the petitioner has submitted that it may not be necessary to refer to all the grounds except the ground that though the detention order states that the detaining authority was satisfied with the police report, the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, no material or evidences have been mentioned on the ground of detention or otherwise to show that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future.

Mr. M.I Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law is well settled in this regard as held in Union of India Vs Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342, Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2011) SCC 244, Huidrom Konungjao Vs State of Manipur & Ors (2012) 7 SCC 181.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases has held that where the detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such person on bail.

Mr. M.I Sharma submits that however in the present case, there is no such material as disclosed in the ground of detention on the basis of which that it could be reasonably said that the detaining authority could form an opinion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. As regards this contention, the State respondents have stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that the said satisfaction by the detaining authority was based on the police report that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. On perusal of the grounds of detention and other documents, it is seen that there is no material on the basis of which the detaining authority could have arrived at such satisfaction. In fact, there is no mention at all in the grounds of detention that the detenu applied for any bail and in absence of application of any bail application, there was no likelihood of being released on bail in the near future. The grounds of detention merely states that it is very likely that the detenu would continue to act in a manner which would endanger the security of the State of Manipur as and when he would be released on bail by the Court. Apart from the bland statement, there is no material disclosed in the ground of detention.

Accordingly, we are satisfied that the aforesaid detention order dated 6-2-2017 passed against the detenu, namely, Md. Junet, is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases and accordingly, we have no other alternative but to set aside the detention order dated 6-2-2017 and the subsequent orders of confirmation.

Accordingly, Md. Junet, aged about 27 years, s/o Md. Habi of Mayang Imphal Bangoon Mamang P.O and P.S Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District is directed to be released immediately, unless required to be detained in connection with any other case.