KAMAL GOGOI ALIAS BHAITI GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a resident of village Nowghuli Gaon, P.S. Bihpuria in the district of Lakhimpur prays for quashing the detention order dated 10.4.97 (Annexure-A) passed by the District Magistrate, Dibrugarh in exercise of his powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, and for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The impugned order of detention (Annexure-A) reads as follows:

(2.) The grounds of detention as set forth in Annexure-B dated 10,4.97are(i)that the detenu is a hard-core activist of United Liberation Front of Assam advocating liberation of Assam from the rest of the Union of India through armed struggle. The organisation has been banned by the Govt. of India vide notification dated 27.11.96; (ii) the detenu has been indulging in activities like murder, extortion, kidnapping, decoity, robbery, acts of sabotage etc.; (iii) the detenu has been trained in handling of sophisticated fire arms namely G-3, G-4, M- 21, M-22, M-23 and US Carbine etc.; (iv) after histraining, in 1990 he returned to Lakhimpur Reserve Forest along with 60 other trained ULFA members armed with sophisticated weapons. He established training camp and imparted training in guerilla warfare and political indoctrination to ULFA recruits under the command of ULFA Chief Paresh Baruah with a view to waging war against the lawfully established Government. His camp was busted by the Army during last part of November, 1990, known as Operation Bajrang. Later on, he also organised a training camp at Tengapani in Arunachal Pradesh ; (v) that he visited Bangladesh in August, 1991 with the self-styled Commander-in-Chief of ULFA, there he managed to procure a fake passport, visited Pakistan with his associate Luhit Deori and attended training camp organised by ISI near Rawalpindi in Pakistan, In January, 1992, he was arrested by the Bangladesh Army but released after some days and pushed back to India; (vi) that in 1993 while attacking a police party he was arrested by the Police in Lakhimpur and a case u/s 147/148/149/307 IPC r/w Section 3/4/5 of the TADA (P) Act was registered against him being Lakhimpur PS case No. 219/93, but was later on released on bail; (vii) that the detenu visited NSCN Headquarters in Nagaland in December, 1994. In 1996 he earned a promotion to the rank of self-styled Captain and Commander of 28 Battalion of ULFA; (viii) the detenu was apprehended by the Army at Duliajan on 7 2.97 where he along with his associates had a secret assembly with a view to extort money from local businessmen, tea gardens, murder and kidnapping of important Govt. officials, political leaders, trader etc. At the time of his apprehension, the detenu and his associates attacked the army personnel and in the exchange of fire a ULFA activist was killed, while some others were apprehended. It resulted in registration of a criminal case under Section 120/121(A)/122/ 123/124(A) IPC r/w Sections 10 & 18 of the UA(P) Act r/w Section 25 (b)/27 of the Arms Act being Case No. 12/97 of Duliajan Police Station ; (ix) that the detenu as self-styled Commander of 28th Battalion of ULFA was responsible for killing of suspected timber smugglers at Assam-Arunachal Pradesh Border and extortion of huge amount of money from different businessman of Dibrugarh and Tinsukia. He also ordered attack on Indian Army at Tinsukia and Sibsagar districts. He was responsible for procurement of illegal arms and ammunition and explosive for the ULFA and extortion of money for the ULFA. After his arrest on 7.2.97, it was at his instance that a huge quantity of live ammunitions of AK series of rifles was recovered from Duliajan on 11.2.97 and 15.2.97. On 19.2.97 five Kilograms of RDX explosive was recovered from various places at his instance. This explosives were concealed with the ulterior motive of blasting of the Oil Refinery. In view of the above activities, the impugned order of detention was passed.

(3.) Going through the grounds of detention as noted by the detaining authority, we do not have the slightest manner of doubt that these grounds are proximate in point of time, relevant and germane to the object sought to be achieved by passing the impugned detention order. The impugned order of detention has been challenged on the following grounds: