ASOK POTSANGBAM, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and Mr. C. Kamal, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
(2.) THE relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this case may be noticed as hereunder : 2.1 On 20.11.2009, an order being No. Cril/NSA/No. 10 of 2009 was issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, for detention of one Shri Sagolshem Okendro Singh @ Toto, S/O. Shri S. Mubi Singh of Khural Thangjam Leikai, P. S. Porompat, District- Imphal East Manipur, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, under the National Security Act 1980, purportedly with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. At the relevant time, the detenu was in custody in connection with the investigation of FIR Case No. 146(10) 2009 Lamphel P.S. under Section 20 UA(P) A. Act and on transfer of the aforesaid FIR from Lamphel P. S. to Heingong P. S. on 31.10.2009, FIR No. 120(10) 2009 under Section 20 UA(P) A. Act and 25 (1-C) A. Act was registered. THE Detaining Authority was of the opinion that on the basis of the police report, the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal Criminal Court and the detenu may continue to act in the same manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in case of release on bail. THE detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention by letter No. Cril/NSA/No. 10 of 2009 dated 20.11.2009. 2.2. THE substance of the allegation in the grounds of detention is that the detenu was a member of Peoples Liberation Army (PLA in short), a prescribed organization, and his service was utilized by one Y. Chourajit Singh of PLA, in procuring, transporting of arms and ammunition from one place to another for use by the PLA members. One SLR which was handed over to the detenu by the said Y. Chourajit Singh was seized along with some ammunition by the police on 25.10.2009 but the gun was without butt. At the relevant point of time, the detenu was already appointed as a Constable in the Manipur Police Department and he was in the process of police verification. By an order under No. 17(1)1612/2009-H issued by the Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, the detention of the detenu under NSA was approved by the Government of Manipur in exercise of power conferred under Section 3(4) of the NSA Act. By another order dated 5.01.2010 issued by the Commissioner of Home, Government of Manipur, the detention of detenu was confirmed in consonance with the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board. This writ petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, challenging the aforesaid detention order, approval order and the confirmation order on various grounds. Though various grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this writ petition, the petitioner chose and relied upon mainly on three grounds in the course of argument before the Court.
(3.) ONE of the grounds submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the detention order is that at the time of issuing the detention order dated 20.11.2009 there was no cogent materials on the basis of which the detaining authority could have formed a subjective satisfaction about the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in the near future as no bail application for release of the detenu was then pending before any Court. The learned counsel further submits that the subjective satisfaction formed by the detaining authority was merely a Ipsi dixit and that it was not on the basis of materials before him and as such, the detention is vitiated. On the contrary, Mr. R.S. Reisang learned Government Advocate submits that there is no dispute that the detenu was in custody in connection with the investigation of FIR Case No. 120(10)/2009 HNG PS case under Section 20 UA(P) A Act and 25 (1-e) Act at the time of issuing the impugned detention order and the learned District Magistrate was fully aware of this fact as reflected in the impugned detention order dated 20.11.2009. Mr. Reisang further submits that when the petitioner was produced on 04.11.2009 along with his younger brother Shri S. Ojit Singh and one Shri Ch. Premjit Singh, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, released the said Ojit Singh and Ch. Premjit Singh on bail on 04.11.2009 i.e. on the first day of production before the Court. Thus, on perusal of the materials, the learned Magistrate could reasonably form a subjective satisfaction about the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in the near future. The learned Government Advocate submits that in (2006) 5 SCC 676 : Senthamilselvi Vs. State of T.N, and Anr. the Apex Court, dealing with similar situation, held that "the only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu was already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be Ipsi dixit of the detaining authority who, on the basis of the materials before him came to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. This is subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally such satisfaction is not to be interfered with." Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the learned Government Advocate further submits that the detaining authority was fully aware that the detenu was in custody in connection with the aforesaid FIR case and on the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority formed his subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction formed by the detaining authority was merely Ipsi dixit is not acceptable. Accordingly, this contention of the petitioner is rejected.;