OINAM DINESHWOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Md. Jallaluddin, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. C. Komol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality of the detention of one Oinam Mainu Devi under National Security Act, 1980. There is no dispute in respect of the following facts. While the said Mainu Devi was in custody in connection with FIR Case No. 36(3) 2008 MI PS under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25 (1-C) A. Act, 17/18/20 UA(P) A. Act, 2004, the District Magistrate, Imphal West passed an order being No. Cril./NSA/No. 15 of 2008 on 25th March, 2008 for detention of the said Mainu Devi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The said detention order was passed purportedly with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The detenu was furnished with the grounds of detention under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 vide letter No. Cril./NSA/No. 15 of 2008 dated 27th March, 2007. The detenu submitted her representations addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and the Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security), North Block, New Delhi on 16th April, 2008 through the Addl. Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. The said representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur was disposed of by the State Government on 19th April, 2008 and the same was communicated to the detenu on 28.4.2008. The order of detention was approved and confirmed by the State Government on 4th April, 2008 and 13th May, 2008 respectively.

(3.) One of the grounds submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority passed the impugned detention order without application of his mind. In this connection, learned counsel of the petitioner submits that since the detenu was in custody in connection with the investigation of FIR Case No. 36(3) 2008 MI PS under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25 (1-C) A. Act, 17/18/20 UA(P) A. Act, 2004 at the relevant time of passing the detention order, there was no necessity of passing the detention order while the detenu was in fact in custody. Learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that though the detaining authority was apparently satisfied from police report about the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in near future, there was nothing in the police report indicating or showing the said likelihood of the detenu being released on bail.