YENDREMBAM RONIBALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Aleng Vashum, learned State Govt. Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenue, is assailing the detention of her husband, namely, Yendrembam Rajenkumar Singh @ Rajen (39 yrs) s/o Y.Apabi of Wangoo Mamang Sabal Leikai, P.S. Sugnu, vide order No. Cril.NSA Case No.50 of 2012 dated 11.12.2012 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, passed by the District Magistrate, Thoubal, Manipur.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his first contention that the detaining authority did not form any opinion that the detenue was likely to be released on bail, thus, rendering the detention of the detenue under National Security Act, 1980 illegal, has drawn attention of this Court to the detention order as well as the grounds of detention where there is no reference or mention of any such statement by the detaining authority to the effect that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that legal principles as regards preventive detention under National Security Act of a person who is already under detention has been dealt with on several occasions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India,, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1640 : (1991) 1 SCC 128 has clarified that detention of a person already in custody is permissible provided that the authorities passing the order is aware that he is actually in custody and on the basis of reliable materials the detaining authority has reason to believe that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail and that on being so released, he would in all probability continue to indulge in prejudicial activities and as such, it has been felt necessary to detain him to prevent from indulging in such prejudicial activities. The relevant para No.13 in the judgment in Kamarunnissa (supra) is quoted as below: -