LAWS(MANIP)-2013-12-1

MD. YUMKHAIBAM BASIR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THOUBAL

Decided On December 05, 2013
Md. Yumkhaibam Basir Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THOUBAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has been detained by order of the District Magistrate, Thoubal District under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 vide order dated 19th June,2013 has filed this writ application challenging the said order of detention in Annexure -A/1.

(2.) IT appears that when the petitioner was in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa in connection with a criminal case, the impugned order was passed solely on the ground that he is likely to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and that an alternative preventive measure is called for. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on the date of the order of detention was passed no application for bail was pending on behalf of the petitioner in any court for being released on bail. Since the petitioner was in custody and no application for bail had been filed by him, there was no necessity on the part of the District Magistrate to pass order of detention. In the absence of any application for bail, the order of detention becomes invalid.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , on the date, the order of detention was passed, the petitioner was in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa in connection with a criminal case. Admittedly, the petitioner had not moved any application for bail. Law is well settled that when the detenu is in custody and there is no apprehension of his being released on bail, an order of detention becomes invalid. In the present case, the District Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction to the effect that though the petitioner is in Manipur Central Jail he is likely to continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The relevant portion of the detention order indicating the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate is quoted below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_782_CRLJ_2014.htm</FRM>