RINGKAHAO HORAM Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions, praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, are based substantially on identical grounds, except the difference in names of the detenus and the petitioner, even the facts are substantially the same. The petitioners are represented by the same counsel and the arguments advanced are also the same. The detaining authority is also the same and even the detention orders have also been passed on the same date. It is for these reasons that these petitions are being disposed of by a common order, touching upon any subject, feature or facts of a particular case whereever necessary.

(2.) The detenus in all these three petitions were arrested on 28.9.96 by Meghalaya Police. It was followed by registration of a Criminal Case No. 74(9)/96 at Rynjah Police Station u/Ss. 121/121A/123/124A IPC read with Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Yet another case 75 (9)/96 u/s 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act was registered at the same Police Station on 30th September, 1996. The detenus are said to be active members of an outfit of NSCN. A huge haul of fire-arms and amunitions, certain important documents and articles relating to the activities of NSCN were seized and recovered from their possession. The detenus were forwarded to the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Shillong with a forwarding report dated 29.9.96. They were again produced before the same Court on 1.10.96 in connection with the subsequent offence registered against them. In all the cases bail petitions were moved on 3.10.96 but they were rejected by the Addl. District Magistrate on the same day.

(3.) While the detenus were still in the police custody on 3.10.96 in connection with the aforesaid cases, they were served with detention orders dated 1.10.96 passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Respondent No. 2. Except the change of name of the detenu, there is no other difference in these detention orders and it is a virtual reproduction of the language of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' The detenus were directed to be detained and kept in Jodhpur jail in Rajasthan. These detention orders have been filed as Annexure-IV to the respective petitions. The grounds of detention, as served on the detenu, are identical except for the change of name of the detenu. It is tiled as Annexure-V in all the three petitions. It is reproduced hereinunder :