TAKHELMAYUM NANDABABU SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IMPHAL WEST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in this writ application, challenges the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East dated 18.12.2013 directing his detention under Sub Section 3 of Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter refers to as the 'NSA,1980'). From the grounds of detention, it appears that the petitioner was elected as Member of Zilla Parishad of 6- Laipham Khunou Gram Panchayat in the year 2007. On 1.1.2012 it was reported that he had fired from his licenced gun at the residential gate of one Khoimu Singh and a case was registered for commission of offence u/s 307 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. On 3.1.2012 he was arrested and was released on bail on 5.1.2012. His term as Member of the GP was completed in Sept/2012 and he again contested but lost. Due to the debt incurred in contesting the election, he wanted to earn money and contacted one W. Ramananda, a member of the KCP Lallumba faction. The said Ramanda asked the petitioner to watch the movement of Shri Suresh Prasad and security forces with an intention to kidnap him for ransom. It is also stated in the ground of detention that on 4.12.2013 the petitioner was again arrested in connection with an FIR No.91(12)2013 Heingang PS for commission of offence u/s 365/447/120-B of the IPC and Section 25 (I-C) A. Act and was remanded to police custody till 18.12.2013. After 18.12.2013 he had been sent to judicial custody. The impugned order of detention was passed on 18.12.2013 on the ground that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in near future as bail is granted for commission of similar offence.

(2.) Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the grounds of detention, submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to his association with any Underground organization and that there is no allegation to show that the petitioner was involved in any action or activity related to any banned organization. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident of 2012 was a criminal act and the incident dt. 4.12.2013 is also a criminal act. There being no allegation of breach of public order in the grounds of detention, the impugned order of detention passed under sub section 3 of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980 is unsustainable. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was in judicial custody and had not moved any application for bail, there was no justification on the part of the District Magistrate, Imphal East to pass the order of detention.

(3.) Mr. Y. Ashang, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC, submitted that in the grounds of detention it is specifically stated that the petitioner was a sympathiser of one U.G. organization, namely, KCP and was also involved in two criminal cases for which it became necessary to pass an order of detention under the NSA,1980. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate, Imphal East in the impugned order of detention is based on the fact that in similar cases bail had been granted by the criminal court and one such order was placed before the District Magistrate which is evident from the grounds of detention.