LEISHANGTHEM NGOUBA SINGH ALIAS CYPRUST, AGED ABOU Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, GOV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application challenges his detention in pursuance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on 26.7.13 under sub-section (3) of Sec. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.

(2.) From the order of detention, it appears that the petitioner was arrested on 30th April, 2007 in connection with a case of Imphal Police Station and was remanded to judicial custody. While in continuing in jail custody, he was detained under the NSA 1980 by order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 16.5.2007. The said order of detention was revoked by the Advisory Board and he was set free. Thereafter, again on 31.8.2009, he was arrested from North AOC in connection with a case of Imphal Police Station and was remanded to custody. Subsequently, he was released on bail. On 21.7.2013, he was again arrested by a team of CDO/IW and a case (FIR No.232(7)2013) was registered in the said Police Station for commission of offence U/s 38/39/40 of UAP Act. After his arrest on 21.7.2013 when he was continuing in jail, the impugned order of detention was passed on 26.7.2013 on the ground that he is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bail is granted in similar case.

(3.) Shri S. Rajeetchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the impugned order of detention on the ground that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the impugned order of detention is without any basis and specially in absence of bail application filed by the petitioner. When he was continuing in jail custody there could not be any apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that he would be released on bail in future and that after being released on bail he will indulge in similar activities. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents placed before the District Magistrate indicated in paragraph-5 of the grounds of detention did not contain the earlier orders of bail and therefore there was no occasion on the part of the District Magistrate to know as to whether the petitioner had been released on bail on two earlier occasions or not. Therefore, in absence of any document to show that the petitioner had been released on bail on earlier two occasions the District Magistrate could not have recorded his subjective satisfaction that the petitioner may be released on bail even in absence of a bail application.