SOUGRAKPAM SURJIT SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. Y. Ashang, learned GA for the State.

(2.) In challenging the detention of the petitioner vide order dated 17.08.2017 under the National Security Act, 1980, (NSA) Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the following 2 (two) grounds.

(3.) Firstly, it has been submitted that though bail application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Imphal West-II, Manipur on 1.8.2017 in connection with FIR No. 51(7)2017 PATSOI P.S. U/S 365/342/368/34 I.P.C. and 18/20 UA(P) Act and hearing of the bail application was fixed on 05.08.2017, it was adjourned to another date on the prayer of the I.O. According to the petitioner, the bail application is yet to be considered. It has been submitted that this fact alone would not be sufficient for the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in near future. Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case no other materials, for example, bail order in respect of any other co-accused in this case has been referred to. In fact, no other co-accused has been released on bail. Mr. Rajeetchandra submits that even though the detaining authority had stated in the grounds of detention in para no. 5 that the detaining authority is satisfied that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future since there are instances of release on bail by the competent court in similar cases, the detaining authority has not referred to any such order passed and as such, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is without any cogent material. Further, it has been submitted by Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel that as provided under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, once a person is arrested and detained under any provision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for commission of any cognizable offence, normally, he can be detained for a period of 180 days and since the petitioner was arrested and detained only on 08.07.2017 there was no likelihood of the petitioner of being released on bail so soon before completion of 180 days. Therefore, the possibility of the likelihood of the petitioner to be released on bail is remote and as such, it cannot be said that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority has been so properly arrived.