SAPANAM Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the wife of the detenu, namely Md. Anish Khan who has been detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Thoubal dated 26th November, 2013 under the National Security Act, 1980 (in short NSA). The order of detention is the subject matter of challenge in the writ application.

(2.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that the detenu joined an armed gang namely Peoples' United Liberation Front (PULF in short) as a member towards the last part of 2004. After joining the said organisation, the detenu got involved in criminal activities such as extortion of money from the General Public, Shop Keepers etc. On 29.07.2010, the detenu was arrested and FIR No. 74(7)2010 Lilong PS was registered u/s. 400/384/511/34 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. However, he was released on bail in February, 2011. Thereafter, for a period of two years, there were no activities and again in July, 2013 the detenu started working for the said organisation. On 2.9.2013 the detenu along with one Md. Riyajuddin were arrested by a team of Commando/Thoubal. There was recovery of one mobile phone and one SIM card from his possession whereas from the possession of Md. Riyajuddin one 9 mm Pistol with magazine loaded four live rounds were seized. FIR No. 74 (9) 2013 was registered at Lilong Police Station against the detenu for commission of offence u/s. 364 -A/34 IPC, 16/18/20 UA(P) A Act read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was remanded to police custody till 12.9.2013 and after 12.9.2013, he is in the Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. When the detenu was continuing in judicial custody, impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Thoubal in exercise of powers conferred under Sub -section (3) of the NSA, 1980.

(3.) SHRI A. Vashum, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the state respondents submitted that the detenu had earlier been arrested in 2010 for committing similar offence and was released on bail in February, 2011. Since the detenu was earlier released on bail after commission of similar offence, District Magistrate had every justification to apprehend that in the event the detenu moves for an application for bail after the detenu's second arrest in connection with FIR No. 74(9) 2013 he would again be released on bail. Therefore, subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the order of detention is based on the fact that after committing similar offence, the detenu had earlier been released on bail which is not in dispute.