MEITEI OF POURABI NEAR LAIPHUTHIBA PS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been detained by order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dt. 6.11.2013 under sub section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980( for short NSA), has filed this writ application challenging the said order of detention as well as the order of confirmation passed by the State Govt.

(2.) From the grounds of detention in Annexure-A/2, it appears that the petitioner is alleged to have joined a banned organization namely, United National Liberation Front (UNLF) in May, 1993. It further appears from the grounds of detention that he took training and also occupied different posts in the organization. It is alleged that he had taken an important role in snatching arms and ammunitions from Kotlen MR post on 10.1.1995 for which a case had been registered in Lamsang PS. On 21.10.2013 at about 5.45 AM he was arrested by a team of CDO/IW from near Poknapham Press Building and one Honda Activa Two wheeler, Driving Licence, RC Book, Voter Identity Card and Mobile set were seized from him. He was handed over to the Officer in- Charge, Imphal Police Station with a written report and seized articles. On the strength of the said report, a case was registered u/s 121/121-A of IPC read with Sect. 16/20 UA(P)A Act vide FIR Case No.282(10)2013. In course of the investigation of the said case, he was again arrested on 21.10.2014 while in custody and was remanded to police custody till 28.10.2013. On 28.10.2013 when he was produced before the Court for judicial remand, he was again formally arrested in connection with FIR Case No.2(1)1995 Lamsang PS and was remanded to police custody till 6.11.2013. While in police custody, District Magistrate, Imphal West passed the order of detention on the last day of police custody i.e. 6.11.2013

(3.) Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the impugned order of detention on the ground that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate, Imphal West in the order of detention is without any basis. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner on the date the order of detention was passed, no application for bail had been moved by the petitioner and therefore exercise of power under sub section 3 of section 3 of the NSA, 1980 at that stage was not necessary. Apart from the above, no document was placed before the District Magistrate with regard to his subjective satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner may be released on bail in the near future as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal Courts.