Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1243 (GAU)

Imran Kuan v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2012-11-02

S.R.SEN

body2012
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Th. Babloo who submitted that in the instant case the detenue Md. Imran. Khan was arrested in connection with FIR. Case No. 122(5) 2012 TBL-Police Station under section 384/326/134, IPC and 25(I-C) A, Act and subsequently booked under NSA 1980. Learned counsel further contents that the detention order dated 19.5.2012 at Annexure A/11 is defective as the learned District Magistrate has failed to assign the reason of his satisfaction for such detention. As such the detention order is illegal so the detenue may be ordered to be released from custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied a judgment reported in 2012 Vol.-I GLT 139 in Hatkhoneng v. State of Manipur and Anr., (2012) 1 GLR 348. 2. On the other hand learned P.P., Mr. R.S. Reisang submits that in this instant case the detenue is belonging to a disciplined force of Government of Manipur and being a disciplined force, he has involved himself with a criminal activity which is prejudicial to the public maintenance and order, so writ petition may be dismissed. And in support of his submission he relied on the judgment reported in Thongam (Ongbi) Sanatombi Devi v. District Magistrate, Imphal West and Ors. (2008) 4 GLR 621 2007 (4) GLT 931. 3. I have perused the operative portion of the order which is reproduced hereunder : "And whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Md. Imran Khan (20 yrs) S/o Md. Zuma Khan of Phundrei Makha Leikai, P.S. -Thoubal, District - Thoubal, Manipur who is now in Police custody, is likely to be released on bail and also since he is likely to continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and also that an alternative preventive measure is called for;" From the operative portion of the order as referred above, it appears that the District Magistrate has come to conclusion that the detenue may be released on bail and if released will continue in the same act which is prejudicial to the public order and maintenance. Before I proceed further, I would like to mention that NSA 1980 has been adopted to meet special situation where normal law finds difficult. 4. Before I proceed further, I would like to mention that NSA 1980 has been adopted to meet special situation where normal law finds difficult. 4. Secondly, I am of the further view that the detention order and grounds of detention cannot be considered separately, it need to read together to understand better how and for what reason detaining authority has come to the conclusion to detain the concerned detenue. 5. On further perusal of the order dated 18.5.2012 passed by the learned District Magistrate mentioning the grounds of detention. I find there are sufficient reasons which has been assigned of his being satisfied to pass the detention order. Therefore, in my considered view there is nothing wrong in the detention order. 6. Hon'ble Division bench in the case of Thongam (Ongbi) Sanatombi Devi (supra) was pleased to observe at para 16, 17 and 18. "16. We are conscious enough to the observations made by the hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342 , as follows : "Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive, but only preventive. It is resorted to when the executive is convinced on the materials available and placed before it that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. The action of the executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authorities. It is not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct, the failure to conform to which alone should lead to detention." 17. The Apex Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Anr. (supra) held that: "In the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed. It is not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct, the failure to conform to which alone should lead to detention." 17. The Apex Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Anr. (supra) held that: "In the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed. (1) If the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody, (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable materials placed before him, (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail and (b) that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity." 18. The Apex Court in Amritlal (supra) held that: "In absence of cogent materials before the officer passing the detention order than it is merely an 'ipse dixit' of the officer passing the detention order. The Apex Court reiterated in T.V. Srauanan @S.A.R. Prasanna v. "Imminent possibility of being released on bail must be based on cogent material, in absence of such material, detention order based on mere 'ipse dixit' of the detaining authority regarding imminent possibility of detenu's prayer for bail being granted cannot be sustained." Similarly in this instant case after combined reading of the detention order dated 18.5.2012 as well as grounds of detention dated 18.5.2012, I did not find any reason, to record that the concerned District Magistrate has just mechanically passed order without any material. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the detention order, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of.