AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.N.K. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Romendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 3 respectively.
The petitioner''s husband-detune is assailing the impugned detention order dated 03.05.2011 issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West in exercise of the powers conferred under sub section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short NSA, 1980) read with Home Department''s Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 07.02.2011, the approval order of the Government of Manipur dated 12.5.2011 and the confirmation order of the Government of Manipur dated 18.6.2011.
It is admitted fact of both the parties that the petitioner''s husband-detune was already in custody in connection with FIR Case No. 48(4) 2011 U/s 17/20 UA (P) A Act and 25(1-B) Act when the impugned detention order dated 3.5.2011 was issued by the detaining authority. The requirements for detaining a detune who is already in custody under the detention order are clearly mentioned in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Paul Manickam and Another, . Two of the crucial materials for deciding the legality or otherwise of the detention order for detaining a detune who is already in custody are (i) whether the detaining authority had the knowledge that the detune was already in the custody when the detention order was issued and (ii) whether there are materials for coming to the subjective satisfaction that the detune is likely to be released on bail.
In the present case, in the impugned order there is no indication that the detaining authority who had the knowledge that the petitioner''s husband-detune is already in custody when the impugned detention order dated 3.5.2011 was issued had satisfaction that the detune is likely to be released on bail. The impugned detention order read as follows:
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR
ORDERS
Imphal, the 3rd May, 2011
No. Crl/NSA/ No. 45 of 2011 : Whereas, a police report has been laid before me that Shri Mayanglambam Ibomcha Singh @ Sarkar (32 yrs) S/o (L) M. Soba Singh of Heirangoithong Maiam Leikai, P.S - Singjamei, District - Imphal is acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order;
Whereas, I, K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order u/s 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980;
Whereas, it is considered necessary to detain Shri Mayanglambam Ibomcha Singh @ Sarkar (32 yrs) S/o (L) M. Soba Singh of Heirangoithong Maibam Leikai, P.S - Singhamei, District - Imphal West, Manipur with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order;
And whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Mayanglambam Ibomcha Singh @ Sarkar (32) S/o (L) M. Soba Singh of Heirangoithong Maibam Leikai, P.S. - Singjamei, District- Imphal West, Manipur who is now in Police custody, is likely to continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, and also that an alternative preventive measure is called for.
Now, therefore, I, K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section-3 of Section-3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department''s Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 07.02.2011 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in Police custody be detained u/s 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 until further orders.
Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this 3rd day of May, 2011.
(K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West.
Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 strenuously contends that in the present case there is mere non mentioning of the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner''s husband-detune is likely to be released on bail in the impugned detention order.
We are of the considered view that the requirements for detaining a detune who is already in custody mentioned in Paul Manickam''s case (supra) are not fulfilled in passing the impugned detention order. Hence the impugned detention order, the approval order and the confirmation order are required to be interfered with.
In the result, the detention order dated 3.5.2011, the approval order dated 12.5.2011 and the confirmation order dated 18.6.2011 are hereby set aside and the petitioner-detune, namely Shri Mayanglambam Ibomcha Singh @ Sarkar, be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case.
This writ petition is allowed.