Writ Petition (CRIL) No. 52 of 2016. Case: Yumnam Sunil Singh Vs The District Magistrate, Imphal West and Ors.. Manipur High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition (CRIL) No. 52 of 2016
Party Name:Yumnam Sunil Singh Vs The District Magistrate, Imphal West and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Kh. Mani, Sr. Advocate assisted by Johnson, Advocate and For Respondents: Vashum, G.A. and S. Rupachandra, ASG
Judges:Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J. and N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Issue:Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goon-das, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-grabbers Act, 1986 - Section 3; Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 17, 20, 25(IC), 5; Constitution of India - Article 22; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 121, 121A, 307, 34, 4, 400, 506; National Security Act,...
Judgement Date:January 11, 2017
Court:Manipur High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J.

  1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.7.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, respondent No. 1, whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 1, in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980, passed the order of detention in Cril/NSA/No. 15 of 2016 against the detenu namely Yumnam Sunijl @ Babusana after recording that in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order it has become necessary to do so.

  2. The grounds on which order of detention was passed are that the detenu joined an armed insurgent organization namely United National Liberation Front (UNLF) as a member in the year 2005. Thereupon, the detenu as well as others were imparted training at Myanmar. In April 2008 when the detenu came to Manipur from Myanmar, he along with others started indulging themselves in such activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On account of that cases were registered as FIR No. 36(5)08 WGI PS u/s. 20 of UA(P) Act and also FIR No. 74(10)09 LIL PS u/s. 20 UA(P) Act. The detenu on being arrested in connection with both the cases and were remanded to judicial custody. However, subsequently he was released on bail. After being released on bail, he started leading normal life but as the ideology of the insurgent organizations operating in the State of Manipur was so ingrained in him that he could not resist himself from joining a banned organization namely Kanglei Yawol Kanba Lup (KYKL) and started working for the said organization under the guidance of one Ksh. Doren Singh, an important member of the said organization. The detenu started demanding money from schools, individuals, firms, business establishment through a mobile. The detenu succeeded in extorting money from those organizations and individuals. The detenu, at the instance of self styled Capt. Even hurled bomb to terrorise the person who dared not to pay money to them. For such acts, cases were registered as FIR case No. 56(3)16 NBL PS u/s. 307/506/34 IPC and also u/s. 20 of UA(P) Act as well as FIR Case No. 35(5)16 WGI PS u/s. 400 of the IPC as well as u/s. 4 of the Expl. Subs. Act. Subsequently, when the detenu was apprehended by the police incriminating articles were recovered and at his instance, an important member of the said organization, Doren Singh, was also arrested. Incriminating articles as well as the detenu and other persons arrested were handed over to Officer in-charge of Wangoi PS with a written report upon which FIR was registered as FIR Case No. 37(5)16 WGI PS u/s. 17/20 UA(P) Act; 25 (I-C) of Arms Act and also u/s.5 of the Expl.subst. Act. Thereupon, he was also arrested in connection with other cases and were remanded to judicial custody.

    On such grounds the respondent No. 1, after recording that detenu would go on indulging himself in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed order of detention on 16.7.2016 which was approved on 27.7.2016 and was confirmed on 20.9.2016. The aforesaid order of detention, its approval and confirmation have been challenged on several grounds.

  3. However, Mr. Khaidem Mani, learned Sr. counsel did confine his argument with respect to the point which is with regard to materials being absent for recording satisfaction by the detaining authority that there is every possibility of detenu being released on bail. In this regard, it was pointed out that it has been recorded that there has been likelihood of detenu being released on bail as one Md. Atao Rahaman @ Atabur @ Md. Ataur Rahaman, an accused in a case registered u/s. 121/121-A of the IPC and also u/s. 20/16 (a) (b) of the UA (P)Act and also u/s. 25 (1-a) (1-B) of the A Act as well as u/s. 4/5 of the Expl.Susb. Act has been released on bail by the court but such release of the accused on bail has nothing to do with the instant case as the petitioner has neither been made accused in a case in which Md. Atao Rahaman has been admitted to bail nor Md. Atau Rahaman has been made accused in a case in which the detenu has been booked in and thereby order of detention can be said to have been passed on ipse dixit ground and thereby order of detention is fit to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Huidrom Konungjao v. State of Manipur reported in (2012)7 SCC 181 wherein their lordships, after noticing similar facts, as has been stated above, had been pleased to hold that detention is based on mere ipse dixit statements made in the ground of detention which cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

  4. Other submission which was advanced is that though in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 13 of the National Security Act, 1980 one can be detained for 12 months subject to confirmation of the detention order by the Advisory Board but in terms of the provisions contained in proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act, State Govt. cannot pass order for detention exceeding 3(three) months in one go or at a stretch. But, here the detaining authority has passed the order of detention for a period of 12 months which is against the provision of the Act and thereby on this ground also the order of detention is bad.

  5. As against this Mr. Vashum, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that from the order of detention it would appear that the detaining authority, after having taken notice of the fact recorded in the ground of detention, did satisfy himself that the detenu, after being released on bail, would indulge himself in same activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and only after...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL