GAIBIDINGPAO KABUI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF MANIPUR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for releasing the petitioner Gaibidingpao Kabui from Jail custody.

(2.) THIS petitioner and two others, Kadonglung and Namei were arrested on 12 -8 -1961 near Tamenglong by the Army and they were produced before Shri K. Lamphel Singh, Magistrate 1st Class at Imphal on 17 -8 -1961 with a letter from the O/C Imphal Police Station. In the said letter, it was mentioned that they were Naga Hostiles of the area and were arrested by the Army, that the O/C Tamenglong and Nungba Police Stations have been asked to submit N.F.I.R. under Section 109, Cri.P.C. for prosecution and that they may be remanded to Jail for a period of 15 days, during which the N.F.I.R. will be submitted. The Magistrate thereupon remanded them to Jail custody till 30 -8 -1961. On 24 -8 -1961, the petitioner Gaibidingpao Kabul sent a petition to the Magistrate from jail stating that he was a cultivator and innocent of any offence and that a Police Report may be immediately called for and he may be released. This petition was seat for a Police report by 30 -8 -1961. The O/C I.P.S. endorsed a report on the said petition on 30 -8 -1961 that the village from where the petitioner was arrested was within the jurisdiction of Nungba Police Station and so the O/C Nungba Police Station may be directed to submit the necessary prosecution report. The petitioner and the two others were produced before the Magistrate with this report and the Magistrate again remanded them to custody till 13 -9 -1961 and in doing so he passed an order in the following words :

(3.) IT was at this stage that the petitioner Gaibidingpao Kabul filed the present application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus before this Court on 22 -9 -1961 in which he pointed out that his arrest itself was done mala fide without any F.I.R. or any other information and without his being informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention in Jail. It was pointed out that the arrest was illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the Cri.P.C. that his detention was against the provision of Section 167, Cri.P.C. that the remand orders were being passed by the Magistrate without any jurisdiction and without recording any reason and that such detention was against the fundamental rights of the petitioner.