KHOISNAM ROBINDRA SINGH Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE IMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges his continued detention pursuant to an order passed on 26-11-1983 u/s.3(3) of National Security Act, 1980, for short the Act, by the District Magistrate (Central) Manipur. The admitted position, however, is that he was first taken into custody by C.R.P.F. personnel in the early morning of 12-5-1983 and then handed over to the police the same day in connection with FIR Case No.100(5)/83 of Singjamei P.S. whereupon he was remanded to judicial custody. While he was thus incarcerated a prayer was made on 6-7-1983 for his arrest by the Investigating Officer of FIR Case No.168(3)/81 of Imphal P.S. to the Court to allow the petitioner to be arrested in connection with the said case. The prayer was allowed. On 9-8-1983 a similar prayer was made by the concerned Investigating Officer in connection with FIR Case No.44(7)/81 of Yairipok P.S. case which was also allowed. However, he was granted bail by the court in all three cases and his case is that on 5-10-1983 he came home and was in his house living with other members of the family as a law-abiding citizen.

(2.) The impugned detention order served on the petitioner was produced before us in original by learned counsel Mr. L. Nanda Kumar Singh. The order is in a cyclostyled type written form wherein the petitioner's name and age (20 years) as also his father's name and address are found to have been filled in hand-writing. We may extract the relevant portion of the recital contained in the said form:

(3.) The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 2-12-1983 after he was taken into custody on 28-11-1983 pursuant to the above detention order. The focal point of attack by learned counsel for the petitioner is ground No. (c) though the other grounds were not spared either. We propose, therefore, to quote and test first the validity of this ground before examining the other contentions raised in this case by the learned counsel: