MD.ABDUL RAJAK KHAN @ MAIBA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,THOUBAL DISTRICT, MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner seeks to challenge his detention order dt 30.01.2013 (annexure-A-1) passed by District Magistrate Thoubal and also seek to challenge the confirmation order dt 6.2.2013 (annexure A-3) passed by the State under the provisions of Prevention of Detention Act (for short hereinafter called 'The Act').

(2.) At the outset, we may state that today (11.07.2013), we passed one detailed order in W.P.(Crl) No 12 of 2013 (Shri Sougrakpam Tamba Singh Vs District Magistrate, Thoubal District, Manipur & 3 Ors) allowing the writ petition and quashing the detention order passed under the Act impugned in the said writ petition. The facts involved in the Writ Petition (Cril.) No. 12 of 2013 (Shri Sougrakpam Tamba Singh Vs District Magistrate, Thoubal District, Manipur & 3 Ors) and the one involved in the present writ petitions so also the grounds/challenge made to the detention orders impugned in both these writ petitions are more or less same and we have not been able to notice any significant distinguishing features in them and the one which we noticed have no bearing as such. As a matter of fact, this writ petitioner was also arrested along with the writ petitioner of WP (Cril) No.12 of 2013 in connection with FIR No.108/10/2012 and hence the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by this Court in the order dated 11.7.2013 passed in WP(Cril) No.12 of 2013 would equally apply to the case of present petitioner.

(3.) We however allowed the writ petition no 12 of 2013 (Shri Sougrakpam Tamba Singh Vs District Magistrate, Thoubal District, Manipur & 3 Ors) and quashed the writ petitioner's detention order impugned in the said writ petition by accepting the first submission of the writ petitioner raised therein to the effect that there was neither any mention in the detention order and nor any material for forming a subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority that detenu (writ petitioner) who was in jail was likely to be released on bail in connection with the offense in which he was kept in jail. Since the same legal submission which found acceptance of this court in W.P (Cril.) No 12/2013 was pressed in service in this writ petition while challenging the impugned detention order of the writ petitioner in this writ petition and that too based on identical facts and therefore, we are inclined to adopt, and apply the same reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by us in W.P.(Cril.) No. 12 of 2013 for quashing the detention order impugned in this writ petition also. It is all the more when the learned counsel for the respondents were not able to point out to us any significant distinguishable factual features in both these cases as compared to the facts involved in W.P.(Cril) No.12 of 2013. That apart, the slight distinguishable facts, which we noticed in this case are not sufficient to take a different view in the writ petition so as to uphold the impugned detention orders.