ROSE SHIMRAY Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UKHRUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These batches of Habeas Corpus Petitions raises the same question of law and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment analogously.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the present habeas corpus petitions may be recited briefly. Detenues were arrested on 28-9-96 at Shillong by the Meghalaya Police and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, pursuant to a direction passed by the Gauhati High Court, they were handed over to Nagaland Police on 3-10-96. They were detained by an order dated 1-10-96 by the Govt. of Nagaland in exercise of power under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short the Act). Detenues challenged the aforesaid order by filing the habeas corpus petitions registered as C. R. Nos. 11/97, 12/97 and 13/97 at principal seat of the Gauhati High Court. The Division Bench disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions on 27-2-97 quashing the detention order and directed the detenues to be set at liberty forthwith unless they are otherwise wanted in connection with some other cases. Consequently, the detention order has been revoked by the Government of Nagaland by its order dated 15-3-97. The detenues were, however, not released and they were handed over to Manipur Police on 10-5-97. Detenues were again detained under the N.S.A. by an order dated 22-7-97 in respect of the detenues in C. R. No. 28/97, C. R. No. 29/97 and the detenu in C. R. No. 31/97 was detained by an order dated 7-8-97, passed by the District Magistrate, Ukhrul, in exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of Section 3 read with Section 3(2) of the Act. This subsequent detention order has been assailed in these batches of habeas corpus petitions. The aforesaid petitions have been espoused by the relatives of the detenues.

(3.) We have heard Shri A. Nilamani Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, Shri A. Jagatchandra Singh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri C. Komol Singh, learned Sr. C. G. S. C. for the respondent No. 3.