SHRI SOUGRAKPAM SURJIT SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application challenges his detention in pursuance of order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District dated 08.04.2013 in exercise of powers conferred under Sub -section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter refers to as the 'NSA') read with Home Department's order dated 08.02.2013. The case of the petitioner is that on 20.3.2013 he was arrested from his residence and was handed over to the Officer in -Charge of Singjamei P.S. wherein a case was registered against him vide FIR No. 76(3) 2013 Sjm P.S. u/s. 20UA(P)A. Act & 5 Expl. A. Act. He was remanded to police custody till 26.3.2013 and by order of the Court he was remanded to judicial custody w.e.f. 26.3.2013. His wife filed an application before the Court on 2.4.2013 for grant of bail and he was released on bail by the court on 5.4.2013. After being released on bail, he was again summoned to the Singjamei Police Station on 7.4.2013 and was detained illegally till 8.4.2013 without any further case. On 8.4.2013 the order of detention was passed and grounds of detention was served on him on 10.4.2013. Thereafter, his representations were rejected, the order of detention was approved by the Board and later on confirmed by the State.

(2.) MR . S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the order of detention solely on the ground that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the order of detention is based on no material. Referring to the grounds of detention, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several documents were placed before the District Magistrate which form the grounds of detention, but none of the documents relates to the order passed by the Court granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any document as to whether petitioner had been granted bail or not, the District Magistrate could not have recorded a finding in the impugned order of detention that the petitioner had been released on bail and is likely to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State as well as maintenance of public order.

(3.) THE relevant paragraph of the order of detention dealing with the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate is quoted below: