TANGMAN N. SANGMA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29-05-2014, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in WP(Cri) No. 15/2013 (Reported in 2014 Cri LJ 3157 (Meg)), whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the Court could not find any scope for interference with the detention order as well as grounds of detention.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to filing of the writ appeal are that the appellant being father of detenue, Shri. Arthar Ch. Marak, instituted a writ petition against the arrest and detention of his son. It appears that the detenue was arrested by the Police on 08-01-2013 in connection with two criminal cases registered as (i) Mendipathar P.S. Case No 42(5) of 2013 under Section 120(B)/121/121(A) IPC read with Section 25(1-A) (1-B) Arms Act and (ii)Mendipathar P.S. Case No. 51(6) 2013 under Section 25 (1-A) (1-B) Arms Act. Upon arrest, the detenue was remanded to Police custody and then given to Judicial custody. While being in custody, the detenue was served with impugned detention order dated 9th September, 2013, detaining him under Section 3 (1) of Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (for short the MPDA, 1995). The order of detention was passed by District Magistrate, North Garo Hills District, Resubelpara, and thereafter, the detenue was lodged in District Jail, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar.

(3.) As per averments, made, it is submitted that the detenue does not belong to militant organization called "Garo National Liberation Army'(for short GNLA) and was not involved in the police cases as alleged. Thus, he was not a party to GNLA which is alleged to have created reign of terror by causing abductions, targeting innocent civilians, engaging in rampant extortion, and wanton killing of police personnel and civilians by pre-meditated attacks and ambushes. It was also stated that the impugned detention order, was mechanically passed on the basis of First Information Report without applying mind to reach a reasonable subjective satisfaction. Moreover, statements of witnesses, list of seized materials, police report and other supporting documents were not supplied to the detenue. Thus, this led to violation of his fundamental rights. It was also alleged in the writ petition that the detaining authority did not inform the detenue of his right to make representation, and thus, he suffered a serious prejudice to his fundamental rights. Learned Single Judge, upon hearing learned counsel for parties, has passed the impugned order as the aforesaid while holding that the detenue was informed about his right to make representation before the District Magistrate as well as Principal Secretary, (Political Department), Govt. of Meghalaya. Now being aggrieved by the judgment in writ petition, the appellant has filed this appeal.