K PAOTHING TANGHUL Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Inazhe learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. I. Jamir learned Sr. Govt. Advocate. In this writ application filed on 16/3/1992, it is stated that the petitioner has been detained under Section 3 of National Security Act by an order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Khape Koza, respondent No.2. The petitioner, according to the certificate issued by Jailor, Dimapur SubJail, has been in custody under the aforesaid Section of law with effect from 24/12/1991.

(2.) It appears the petitioner was earlier arrested in connection with some other criminal cases but in those cases he was granted bail. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now detained in sub-jail, under the aforesaid Section 3 of NSA as stated above. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar today that as per information received from the Jailor the petitioner has been kept under detention on the basis of custody warrant only. And in that custody warrant the only section mentioned is section 3 of NSA. It is further stated by the learned counsel that when the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to furnish copy of order of detention he was informed that he was simply told that the facts could be ascertained only from the Jail authority. It is now stated that at last the petitioner was able to get a certificate which is filed as annexure-A issued by the Jailor on 11/1/1992 to say that the petitioner has been kept in custody under Section 3 of NSA as per the warrant of immediate custody order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Respondent No.2).

(3.) In our anxiety to ascertain the truth of the matter, we have made effort to have the record of the case available before us through learned Sr. Govt. Advocate. We are informed now by the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate that he sent learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. V. Angami to collect the relevant case record from respondent No.2 along with a copy of this writ application. We are shocked to hear that the respondent No.2 refused to hand over any relevant case record in connection with this writ application. We are further shocked that although he is impleaded as respondent No.2 he has not taken any steps to explain the matter himself.