AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, C.J.
The petitioner, in this writ application, assails his detention in pursuance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on 27.4.2015 directing his detention under sub -section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.
In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the petitioner joined a banned organization namely United National Liberation Front (UNLF) in January,1994. Due to prejudicial activities carried out by him, he was arrested on 21.5.1996 and was remanded to judicial custody on 29.5.1996. However, he was released on bail on 18.7.1996. After being release on bail, it is alleged that he again started working for the said organization. On 16.1.2004 he was again arrested and was remanded to jail custody. He was also detained under the National Security Act by order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dt. 23.1.2004. After completion of the period of detention, he was set at liberty. It is stated in the grounds of detention that after December, 2014 he was leading a normal life but again started working for the organization in 2005 and was involved in several prejudicial activities. On 20.1.2015 he was arrested for the third time in connection with FIR No. 18(1)2015 Lamphel P.S. and at his instance 1 AK 56 Rifle along with two magazines loaded with 30 live rounds and another magazine loaded with 59 live rounds were seized from the backyard of the house of one Elangbam Birenkumar Singh.
The said order of detention by the District Magistrate was confirmed by the Board as well as by the State Government.
Challenging the order of detention, Shri S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
"(i) after the petitioner was arrested on 20.1.2015, he along with 3 other accused persons had moved an application for bail. The learned CJM, Imphal West in Cril. Misc. Case NO.50 of 2015 rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner as well as one Irom Rakesh Singh but allowed bail so far as other two accused persons are concerned.
(ii) though this fact was known to the local authorities, it was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and rejection of his prayer for bail was purposefully suppressed;
(iii) after being arrested in connection with FIR No. 18(1)2015 Lamphal P.S. the petitioner was also arrested in connection with FIR No. 10(1)2015 of City P.S. while in custody. This fact was also not brought to the notice of the detaining authority."
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all relevant facts must be placed before the detaining authority for his subjective satisfaction and if relevant facts are suppressed, the order of detention becomes illegal.
Mr. A. Vashum, learned counsel for the State submitted that on the date the order of detention was passed, second bail application of the petitioner was pending. The District Magistrate, Imphal West took into consideration the second bail application filed by the petitioner which was pending consideration and being satisfied that in similar offences petitioner had earlier been released on bail and that his co-accused persons have been released on bail. Even in the case relating to FIR 18(1)2015 Lamphel P.S., the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner shall also be released on bail and accordingly passed the impugned order of detention.
From Annexure-D/3 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, we find that the petitioner along with 3 other co accused persons had moved an application for bail in the case registered vide FIR No. 18(1)2015 Lamphel P.S. and out of the 4 accused persons, 2(two) were granted bail and prayer for bail so far as the petitioner and another accused is concerned, was rejected. Admittedly, from the grounds of detention, it is clear that this fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority.
Though there is no mention in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was also formally arrested in connection with FIR No. 10(1)2015 of City P.S. while in custody, it is specifically the case of the petitioner that he was arrested while in custody in connection with the said FIR case and he also moved an application for bail in the said case. The bail application filed in the said case is annexed as Annexure-D/4 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. From the grounds of detention, we find that this fact was also not brought to the notice of the detaining authority.
In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Kamal Kishore Saini, the Apex Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment held that it is incumbent to place all the vital materials before the detaining authority to enable him to come to a subjective satisfaction as to the passing of the order of detention as mandatorily required under the Act. In this connection, reference may also be made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ahamed Nassar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, . In the said reported case, though the detention was under COFEPOSA 1974, it was held that rejection of a bail petition is also a relevant fact to be taken note of by the detaining authority.
Admittedly, in the present case rejection of the bail application of the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and had it been brought to the notice of the detaining authority, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner may be released on bail could be otherwise.
Shri Vashum, learned counsel appearing for the State, in support of his submission that release of the co-accused persons on bail is also a relevant factor, is not in dispute. He had placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of T. Nadu tr. Sec. to Govt. and Another, . As stated earlier the petitioner and rest accused persons had moved an application for bail jointly and in the same order, prayer for bail so far as the petitioner is concerned, was rejected along with another accused. The rest two accused persons were granted bail. The Court having once rejected bail application of the petitioner, what is the scope of getting bail in the second petition referred to the order of detention should have been considered by the District Magistrate, but the earlier rejection of the bail having not been brought to the notice of the detaining authority, effect of it was not considered.
We are, therefore, of the view that all the relevant materials having not been placed before the detaining authority- such as rejection of the prayer for bail so far as the petitioner is concerned and his arrest in connection with FIR No. 10(1)2015 City P.S. having not been placed before the detaining authority, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the impugned order is not sustainable.
We, accordingly, allow the writ application, set aside the impugned order of detention and direct that the petitioner namely, Shri Thounaojam Brojen Singh @ Guru @ Korouhanba @ Korou @ Boby be set at liberty unless his detention is required in any other case.