LAWS(MANIP)-2014-4-7

RAGONGJOK KAMEI @ AJOK Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TAMENGLONG DISTRICT

Decided On April 01, 2014
Ragongjok Kamei @ Ajok Appellant
V/S
District Magistrate, Tamenglong District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong on 5.8.2013 directing detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. From the grounds of detention, it appears that on 26.7.2013 the petitioner was arrested by a team of Nungba Police Station from Mantripukhri, Lamlongei in c/w a case of Nungba P.S. and was remanded to police custody till 5.8.2013. The I.O. seized some cash, a Mobile Phone, a Voter ID Card, a Driving Licence and a black leather wallet. It is the case of the police that the amount had been extorted at the instance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has been remanded to Jail custody. While continuing in Jail custody, the impugned order of detention was passed in Annexure- A/1 on 5.8.2013.

(2.) The sole contention on behalf of the petitioner is that after the petitioner was arrested and taken to custody in connection with the above case, he had not filed any application for grant of bail and accordingly there could not be any apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that the petitioner may be released on bail and that after being released on bail, he would indulge in similar activities. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the order of detention in absence of any bail application pending on behalf of the petitioner, is without any basis and renders the order of detention invalid.

(3.) The State Government has filed a counter affidavit in support of the order of detention and it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is a hard-core member of ZUF and has committed various activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. On consideration of the above the order of detention having been passed, there is no illegality in such order of detention.