NINGTHOUJAM(N) OINAM(O) INAOBI DEVI Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BISHNUPUR DISTRICT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this writ application, challenges the order of detention dated 7-8-2014 passed under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur.

(2.) In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the detenue joined a banned organisation namely Peoples Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak Progressive in the month of June, 2010 and started working for the said organization. Her job was to transport arms and ammunitions, explosive materials including IEDs from Moreh to Imphal. She was arrested on 11-4-2012 with recovery of two Chinese hand-grenades and one detonator and a case was registered for commission of offence u/Ss. 16/17/18/20 of UA(P) A. Act and Section 5 of the Expl. Substances Act. She was released on bail by Court on 24-5-2012. After being released on bail, it is alleged that she stayed at home and was leading a normal life but again joined the same organization and got involved in some criminal activities. She was again arrested on 26-7-2014 and was remanded to police custody till 2-8-2014. While in custody, she was again formally arrested in connection with FIR No.52(7) 14 BPR PS u/Ss. 307/34, IPC, Section 20 of UA(P) A. Act & Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. After being formally arrested in the said case, she was remanded to police custody till 7-8-2014. Thereafter, she was sent to Jail custody. While in jail custody the detention order was passed.

(3.) Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the order of detention mainly on two grounds- (i) on the date the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, no application for bail was pending consideration before any court and therefore when the petitioner had not submitted any application for bail in the cases for which she had been arrested, passing of the impugned order under the National Security Act is unjustified; (ii) while confirming the order of detention, the State Government could not have passed the order to detain the detenue for a period of 12 months at one go from the date of detention.