SAGOLSHEM ONGBI PINKY DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and Mr. C. Kamal, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

(2.) THE relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this case may be noticed hereunder: 2.1. On 20.11.2009, an order being No. Cril/ NSA/No.10 of 2009 was issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, for detention of one Shri Sagolshem Okendro Singh @ Toto, S/o Shri S. Mubi Singh of Khural Thangjam Leikai, P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East Manipur, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, under the National Security Act, 1980, purportedly with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. At the relevant time, the detenu was in custody in connection with the investigation of FIR Case No. 146(10) 2009 Lamphel P.S. under Section 20 UA (P) A. Act and on transfer of the aforesaid FIR from Lamphell P.S. To Heingong P.S. on 31.10.2009, FIR No. 120(10) 2009 under Section 20 UA(P) A. Act and 25 (1-C) A. Act was registered. THE Detaining Authority was of the opinion that on the basis of the police report, the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court and the detenu may continue to act in the same manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in case of release on bail. THE detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention by letter No. Cri/NSA /No. 10 of 2009 dated 20.11.2009 2.2. THE substance of the allegation in the grounds of detention is that the detenu was a member of Peoples Liberation Army (PLA in short), a prescribed organization, and his service was utilized by one Y. Chourajit Singh of PLA, in procuring, transporting of arms and ammunition from one place to another for use by the PLA members. One SLR which was handed over to the detenu by the said Y. Chourajit Singh was seized along with some ammunition by the police on 25.10.2009 but the gun was without butt. At the relevant point of time, the detenu was already appointed as a Constable in the Manipur Police Department and he was in the process of police verification.

(3.) ONE of the grounds submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the detention order is that at the time of issuing the detention order dated 20.11.2009 there was no cogent materials on the basis of which the detaining authority could have formed a subjective satisfaction about the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in the near future as no bail application for release of the detenu was then pending before any Court. The learned counsel further submits that the subjective satisfaction formed by the detaining authority was merely a ipsi dixit and that it was not on the basis of materials before him and as such, the detention is vitiated.