Writ Petition (Cril) No. 15 of 2015. Case: Md. Nasir Hussain Vs The State of Manipur and Ors.. Manipur High Court
|Case Number:||Writ Petition (Cril) No. 15 of 2015|
|Party Name:||Md. Nasir Hussain Vs The State of Manipur and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Ph. Sanajaoba, Advocate and For Respondents: Y. Ashang, Addl. G.A.|
|Judges:||Rakesh Ranjan Prasad and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.|
|Issue:||Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1)(a)(1B); Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22; Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 4, 5; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 121, 121A, 307, 34, 427, 511; National Security Act, 1980 - Sections 3, 3(2); Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (Central) - Sections 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 20|
|Judgement Date:||April 18, 2016|
|Court:||Manipur High Court|
Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder respondent No. 2 in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 passed the order of detention against the petitioner after being satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and to maintain public order it has become necessary to do so.
The grounds on which the order of detention was passed are that the detenu who having been enrolled in the Village Defence Force (in short 'VDF') had been posted under different Police stations, came into contact with one Md. Atao Rahaman @ Atabur @ Md. Ataur Rahaman, an important member of the co-ordination committee of underground outfits (conglomerate of six valley-based underground outfits) in short known as 'CORCOM' which had been declared as an unlawful organisation by the Government of India, instigated the detenu to carry out activities which is prejudicial to the security of the State for the underground outfits. The detenu having agreed to do so exploded hand grenade at the side of NH-102 on 11.01.2015 for which an FIR bearing No. 05(01)2015 LIL-PS was registered under sections 307/427/34 of the IPC, 3 Expl. Subs. Act and 16(1)(a)/20 UA(P) Act. Subsequently, the detenu planted IED bomb at the 40 AR Lilong Post for which another FIR bearing No. 6(1)2015 LIL-PS under sections 307/511/34 of the IPC, 16(1)(b) UA (P) Act & 5 Expl. Sub. Act was registered. The detenu was paid money to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and that on 19.5.2015 at 4.30 PM, the detenu was arrested by the Imphal West Police in connection with a case registered as City P.S. Case No. 68(05)2015 registered under section 121/121-A of the IPC, 20/16(1)(b) UA (P) Act, 25(1)(a)(1-B)A. Act and 4/5 Expl. Subs. Act and was subsequently remanded in the aforesaid cases. On such ground, the respondent No. 2 after recording that, the detenu after availing bail facilities would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention on 23.06.2015.
A copy of the said detention order was served along with the grounds of detention upon the detenu while he was lodged in Manipur Central Jail. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 4.7.2015. Having receipt of the detention order, the detenu submitted his representation on 8.7.2015, which was rejected by the District Magistrate vide his order as contained in letter dated 6.7.2015. Subsequently, representation was rejected by the State Government as well as by the Central Government. Subsequently order of detention was confirmed by the State Government vide its order dated 31.7.2015. The aforesaid orders of detention, its approval as well as confirmation had been challenged on several grounds.
Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did confine his argument with respect to only one ground, which is with respect to non-recording of the satisfaction by the Detaining Authority of possibility being there of the accused of releasing on bail. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the order of detention was passed while the detenu was in custody but the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention never recorded its satisfaction that the detenu, an accused of a case in which bail application had been filed, is likely to be released on bail; rather, the Detaining Authority has only recorded that the detenu has filed bail application and wherever such satisfaction of the Detaining Authority of the detenu being likely to be released on bail, is not there that order of detention, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Union of India - Vrs - Paul Manickam & Anr., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342 and also in a case of Kamarunissa - Vrs - Union of India & Anr...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL