NINGTHOUJAM NINGOL ROMABATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. RS Reisang, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent as well as Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of India. This writ petition of Habeas Corpus is directed against the order dated 11.3.2011 issued by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur, Manipur detaining the detenu Smt. Ningthoujam Ningol Nongmaithem Ongbi Romabati Devi u/s 3 of the National Security Act, 1980(the 'Act' for short).

(2.) THE detenu is the petitioner herself. The petitioner was arrested on 23.2.2011 in connection with FIR No. 7(2) of 2011 Kumbi P.S. u/s 364 -A IPC 20 U.A. (P) Act and 25 (1 -C) Arms Act. When she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bishnupur, she was also formally arrested in connection with FIR No. 8(2) 2011 BPR. P.S. u/s 364 -A/34 IPC and 20 U.A.(P) Arms Act, whereafter she was remanded to police custody till 11.3.2011. On her production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur on 11.3.2011, she was served with the impugned detention order. On 15.3.2011, the grounds of detention were furnished to her whereupon she filed a representation to the detaining authority on 18.3.2011. This representation was rejected by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur on 11.4.2011. On 17.3.2011, the State Government approved the impugned detention order. On 29.3.2011 the petitioner filed representations to the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. However, on 26.4.2011, the State Government issued the order confirming the detention order. On 24.3.2011 the Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal reported to the IG of Prisons, Manipur, Imphal that the detenu was found to be pregnant, for which she was released on parole for 10 (ten) days. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur, Central Jail, Imphal requested the Director of Medical and Health Services, Manipur for special sitting of State Medical Board. On 1.8.2011, the Director of Medical and Health Services submitted his report. The special State Medical Board reported that she deserved to be released on parole on the ground of 8(eight) weeks of pregnancy and should be under the care of jail medical authorities. Any way the petitioner is still under detention. It is reported at the bar that she has now delivered a child.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conclusion of the detaining authority that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail is based on no material and as such the detention order is liable to be quashed. He places strong reliance on the recent decision of the Apex Court in Yumman Ongbi Lembi Liema v. State Manipur, 2012 2 SCC 176 in support of his contention. On the other hand, Mr. RS Reisang, learned Senior State Counsel, supports the impugned detention order by contending that considering the past history of the petitioner, there is every likelihood of her being released on bail by criminal court. According to the learned State Counsel, in the atmosphere prevalent in this part of the country, where threats given to Magistrate from time to time unless militants are released on bail are not unusual, the release of the petitioner will result in grave public mischief, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. A number of decisions have been cited by the learned State Counsel in vehemently opposing the writ petition which need not be referred to in view of the decision of the three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in Yumman Ongbi Lembi Liema .