DON LAM CHING ZOU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O MR. JAMCHINTHANG ZOU OF Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BISHNUPUR DISTRICT, MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur, respondent No. 1, whereby and where under respondent No. 1, in exercise of power conferred under sub Section (3) of Sec. of 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 passed the order of detention in Cril.1/NSA/DM-BPR/2016 against the detenue namely Mrs.Don Lam Ching Zou, after being satisfied that in order to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, it has become necessary to do so.

(2.) The grounds on which order of detention was passed are that the detenue along with Mrs. Chindeiching Zou, after coming into contact with one Lianpao Inpi Zou @ Papao of Myanmar started smuggling of arms and ammunition procured from Myanmar along with some other persons. Further it has been recorded that in the month of Oct., 2015 the detenue sold one Rifle along with magazine to a couple of Thadou at Rs. 2,40,000.00 and that the detenue along with Chindeiching Zou, having procured two Rifles through Mr.Lianpao @ Papao planned to sell it to one Ngangam Kuki at Rs. 2.4 lakh per Rifle. On 19.2.2016 while the detenue along with Mrs.Chindeiching Zou and others were coming towards Kwakta to deliver the arms to the said Ngangam Kuki they were apprehended by the police who recovered the Rifles and magazines as well as other materials from their possession and lodged a case which was registered as Moirang P.S. Case No. 18 (2) 2016 under Sec. 400/34 Penal Code and 25(1-C) Arms Act. On such ground the respondent No. 2 after recording that the detenue (in custody) is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order passed the order of detention on 30.3.2016.

(3.) A copy of the detention order was served along with grounds of detention upon the detenue while she was lodged in jail. The order of detention was approved by the Government on 7.4.2016 and subsequently confirmed by the Government. The aforesaid orders of detention, its approval as well as confirmation, have been challenged on several grounds. However, Mr.T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed only one point that the Detaining Authority while passing order of detention though has recorded that there is every likelihood of detenue being released on bail but material upon which such satisfaction was recorded is not there and as such, order of detention cannot be sustained in law.