Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 56 (MAN)

Maibam Anuradha v. State of Manipur

2014-04-25

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA, N.KOSIWAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. The petitioner, wife of Maibam Ibomchan Singh, who has been detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dt. 3.8.2013 under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, has sought for quashing the said order of detention passed by the District Magistrate. 2. From the grounds of detention, it appears that as per the police report the husband of the petitioner had joined a banned organisation namely Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup (KYKL) and was procuring arms and ammunitions for the said organization. It further appears from the grounds of detention that he was arrested by a team of CDO/IW on 29.4.2013 and one pistol with one magazine loaded with 10 live rounds had been seized from him. He was, thereafter, handed over to Sekmai P.S. and an FIR, i.e. FIR No. 52(4) 2013 was registered in the said police station for commission of offence u/s. 17/20 of UA (P) Act and Section 25(I-C)A. Act. He was remanded to police custody till 4.5.2013. On 4.5.2013 when he was produced before the court for judicial remand, he was again formally arrested in connection with FIR 109(4)13 and again remanded to police custody till 10.5.2013. On 10.5.2013 he was remanded to judicial custody and while in Jail the order of detention was passed on 3.8.2013. 3. Mr. H. Komol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the order of detention, submitted that on the date the order of detention was passed, the petitioner was in judicial custody and had not moved any application for bail. Therefore, subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate that husband of the petitioner may be released on bail in near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases, is not based on any material. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the documents which were produced before the detaining authority did not contain a single bail order to show that in similar cases bail had been granted by the courts. In absence of any such document, the District Magistrate could not have recorded his subjective satisfaction to the effect that in the event the husband of the petitioner moves an application for bail, he would be released. 4. Ms. L. Manomala, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. In absence of any such document, the District Magistrate could not have recorded his subjective satisfaction to the effect that in the event the husband of the petitioner moves an application for bail, he would be released. 4. Ms. L. Manomala, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Union of India, referring to the counter affidavit filed by them, submitted that since husband of the petitioner was involved in such activities which are detrimental to the security of the State, the order of detention was rightly passed by the District Magistrate detaining him under the National Security Act, 1980. So far as recording of subjective satisfaction is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in similar cases bails having been granted by the courts, the apprehension of the District Magistrate that the husband of the petitioner would also be released on bail is justified. 5. Admittedly, as it appears from the grounds of detention, husband of the petitioner was initially arrested on 29.4.2013 and had been remanded to police custody. After completion of the remand period when he was produced in Court, he was formally arrested in connection with another FIR and was again remanded to police custody. Only on 10.5.2013 he was remanded to judicial custody. After he was remanded to judicial custody, admittedly, he had not moved any application for bail in either of the two cases. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is as to whether when the husband of the petitioner was continuing in jail custody and had not moved any application for bail, the order of detention is justified or not. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 . The relevant two paragraphs of the judgment are quoted below: 26. It was held in Union of India V. Paul Manickam that if the detaining authority is aware of the fact that the detenu is in custody and the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities he must be detained to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can validly be made. 27. 27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed. This judgment of the apex Court has been followed by this Court in several cases and orders of detention have been set aside. Apart from the above legal position, it is also clear that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate that the husband of the petitioner may be released on bail as bails are granted in similar cases, is based on no material. Not a single document had been produced before the District Magistrate to show that bail had been granted in similar cases earlier. 6. For the reasons stated above, we have no other option except to set aside the order of detention. We accordingly allow the writ application, quash the order dated 3.8.2013 in Annexure-A/1 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West and consequently set aside the confirmation order dated 7th Sept. 2013 in Annexure-A/4. Husband of the petitioner namely, Maibam Ibomcha Singh be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.