Manipur High Court
Ahanthem Sunolata Devi vs The District Magistrate on 29 July, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 10:53:47 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(Crl.) No. 11 of 2025
Ahanthem Sunolata Devi
Petitioner
Vs.
The District Magistrate, Imphal East and 3 others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(K. Somashekar, C.J.)
29.07.2025
[1] This writ petition has been initiated by the petitioner namely,
Smt. Ahanthem Sunolata Devi, mother of the detenu/accused/perpetrator.
[2] Whereas, under this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging
the orders rendered by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur
dated 07.05.2025.
[3] Heard Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA for the respondents No. 1 and
2 and Ms. Pamchui MK Shimray for the respondents No. 3.
[4] Perused the order dated 07.05.2025.
[5] Whereas, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this
matter submitting that the petitioner is the natural mother of the
Page | 1
detenu/accused. The petitioner’s son who is a family member and consisting
the family members as his wife and two minor children and the accused,
was apprehended by the arresting authority/CDO, Imphal East on
13.04.2025 at around 9:00 pm and while he was returning to the residence
of the said Nandakumar situated at Khurai Kongpal after attending a
meeting of the top functionaries of the aforesaid organization which is
indicating in this material.
[6] It is further contended that the arresting authority was
apprehending the accused on the premises that a 9 mm Pistol with 18 live
rounds in the magazine which was issued to him for the protection of Shri
Irengbam Nandakumar @ Tonsana. The xerox copy of the said identification
card of the accused is produced vide Annexure-A/1 to the petition.
[7] It is further contended that the arresting authority/personnel
of CDO, Imphal East on the aforesaid date, the accused was handed over
to the Officer-in-Charge of Porompat P.S along with the report in detail.
The report is indicating that on random frisking and checking the petitioner’s
son was found to be in possession of one 9mm pistol loaded with 15 live
round/cartridges in the magazine. The same has been indicating therein
and also the contention is taken by the learned senior counsel that the
report as been prepared by the arresting authority to suit their purposes.
[8] It is further contended that based upon the report, the case
has been registered by recording an FIR in FIR case being FIR Case No.
Page | 2
81(4)2025 PRT-P.S. for the offences u/s 17/20 UA(P) Act, 2025(1-B) of the
Arms Act and section 5 of the Expl. Subs. Act. The same has been indicating
in FIR which was recorded by the jurisdictional police to proceed in further
and also framing of chargesheet against the accused.
[9] It is further contended that the petitioner’s son was in judicial
custody since from the date of his arrest but now, he is admitted to the
Psychiatry ward of the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences (for
short ‘JNIMS’) at Porompat for treatment of psychiatric illness. The accused
was discharged on 01.06.2025 on account of severe flooding of JNIMS.
These are all the contentions which have been taken by the learned senior
counsel and to support his contention he has produced xerox copies of the
medical certificate issued by the Consulting Psychiatric Doctor dated
12.05.2025 and also the discharge Certificate dated 01.06.2025 vide
Annexure – A/2(Colly) to the petition.
[10] The accused who is not other than the son of the petitioner,
was in judicial custody and also undergoing treatment for his Psychiatric
illness at JNIMS Hospital. To that effect, the learned senior counsel
produced the document vide Annexure-A/3 i.e. the detention order dated
07.05.2025.
[11] It is further contended that in Annexure-A/3 to this petition,
the respondent No. 1 has furnished the grounds of his detention bearing
No. Cril/NSA/No. 2 of 2025/2080 dated 07.05.2025. In order to substantiate
Page | 3
his submission, he has produced the document as vide Annexure-A/4 (Colly)
that the aforesaid grounds of detention and documents enclosed therein for
the purpose of perusal and also for consideration.
[12] Lastly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitting
that the documents vide Annexure-A/5 i.e. the copy of the application dated
12.05.2025 has been submitted and Annexure-A/6 i.e. the copy of the order
dated 15.05.2025 is also enclosed therein and the copy of the Annexure-
A/7 i.e. the representation dated 21.05.2025, the postal receipts dated
21.05.2025 and inclusive of the postal tracking records. Vide Annexure-A/8
i.e. copy of the order dated 27.05.2025 which confirmed the order of
detention vide Annexure-A/3 to the petition and these are all the documents
which have been produced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
for seeking intervention for consideration of the grounds and also setting
aside impugned order issued by the competent authority/District Magistrate,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
[13] Whereas, the learned senior counsel in this matter in further
taken us to the grounds of detention and orders relating to them in detail,
wherein the learned senior counsel in this matter referred the provision of
Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 which reads as thus :
“8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed
to persons affected by the order.–
(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a
detention order, the authority making the order
shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not laterPage | 4
than five days and in exceptional circumstances
and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later
than ten days from the date of detention,
communicate to him the grounds on which the order
has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the
order to the appropriate Government.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority
to disclose facts which it considers to be against the
public interest to disclose.”
[14] The grounds of order of detention should be disclosed to a
person affected by the orders but in this matter, the detenu/accused who
is not other than the son of the petitioner and mother of the accused has
approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking for intervention and
also for consideration of setting aside the impugned order of detention
rendered by the District Magistrate, these are all the contentious
contentions which have been taken by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and submitting emphatically that many judgments have been
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relating to the issues under
Section 8 of the NSA Act, 1980 and inclusive of the various Articles of the
Constitution of India and specifically, Article 20, Article 18, Article 21, Article
22(5) and Article 13 of the Constitution of India and the scope of these
Articles has been extensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, reported in AIR
1950 SC 27 in detail, these are all the contentious contentions which have
Page | 5
been taken in by the learned senior counsel in this matter and whereby
seeking for intervention and if not, there shall be some miscarriage of justice
to the detenu/accused, on this premises only seeking setting aside the
impugned order which was rendered by the District Magistrate/competent
authority.
[15] On contrary, the learned GA in this matter has taken us to the
orders rendered by the competent authority dated 07.05.2025 vide
Annexure-A/3, the application of the accused person has been submitted to
the District Magistrate, Imphal East District as under Section 480 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 43(D) UA(P)
Act of 1967 and even praying for release him on bail has been filed on 24th
April 2025 in the Court of the Special Judge (NIA), Imphal East at Cheirap
Court Complex, Imphal, Manipur. The same has been specifically stated in
para 2 of the order dated 7th May, 2025.
[16] Whereas, the learned GA in this matter has taken us to the
order dated 7th May, 2025 vide Annexure-A/3 rendered by the District
Magistrate, Imphal East District but the capacity of the District Magistrate,
Imphal East District, Manipur and he has been satisfied with the materials
which have been secured and subjected to the examination in detail of the
police report and relevant document and consequently, passing of orders
keeping in view Section 3 (2) of the NSA Act, 1980 and there is likelihood
of his release on bail as he has applied for the same on 24th April, 2025.
These are all the contentions which have been taken by the learned GA
Page | 6
submitted that to support the orders rendered by the District Magistrate,
Imphal East District dated 7th May, 2025 and also justified the said orders,
on this premises only seeking for dismissal of this writ petition filed by the
petitioner who is none other than the mother of the detenu/accused.
[17] In this background of the contentious contentions taken by
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner which is stated supra and
inclusive of the submission which is made by the learned GA who has
referred the orders dated 7th May, 2025 and thereby the order has been
confirmed by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, i.e. orders
by the Governor of Manipur dated 27.05.2025 and wherein the Advisory
Board constituted under Section 9 of the said Act has carefully considered
the case of the said person in its sitting held on 21.05.2025 and to that
effect submitted the report on 25.05.2025 and unanimously held that there
are grounds and sufficient causes for detention of the detenu under the
provision of the said Act. The same is also indicating in para 3 of the order
dated 27th May, 2025 whereby confirming the orders rendered by the
District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur.
[18] It further reveals that the Governor of Manipur after
considering the proximate past of the detenu being an underground worker
of the banned organization, United Liberation Front, UNLF(P), which are
prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and there is apprehension of
his continuing to commit similar prejudicial activities, unless his activities
are prevented by preventive measures under the provision of NSA, 1980,
Page | 7
and therefore, is of the opinion that the said person should be detained for
the maximum period of 12 (twelve) months as provided under Section 13
of the said Act. However, the FIR has been recorded by the Investigating
Agency which is based upon the reports submitted by the concerned
authorities, but the offences have been lugged in by the accused under the
relevant provisions of the UA(P) Act of 1967 and inclusive of the Indian
Arms Act but the last paragraph of the orders rendered by the Commissioner
(Home), Government of Manipur dated 27.05.2025 reveals as in
consonance with the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board and in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12(1) of the said Act, the
Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the detention detaining the
detenu/accused is hereby confirmed and further fixing the period of
detention for a period of 12 (twelve) months from the date of detention.
[19] Whereas, under this writ petition challenging the order of the
District Magistrate subsequently the confirmation orders rendered by the
Governor of Manipur on 27.05.2025 and these two orders have been
challenging under this writ petition raising the various grounds and also
facilitated the various documents vide Annexures which has been stated
supra. However, keeping in view the contentious contentions taken by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this matter are concerned, it is
deemed appropriate for referring the ratios which have been rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India :
Page | 8
In the case of Mohinuddin @ Moin Master vs DistrictMagistrate, Beed & Ors. reported in 1987 (4) SCC 58 :
Preventive Detention – Representation – Inordinate and unexplained delay
in disposal of detenu’s representation to Chief Minister, held, rendered
continued detention of the detenu illegal and unconstitutional – Explanation
that Chief Minister remained on tour and busy with important matters of the
State not acceptable – Mandate of Article 22(5) explained – Constitution of
India, Article 22(5)Preventive Detention – Representation – Detenu’s representation to the
State Government must be disposed of expeditiously without waiting for
opinion of Advisory Board, otherwise continued detention of the detenu will
become illegal and unconstitutionalPreventive Detention – Affidavit – Persons competent to file counter-affidavit
on behalf of the StateConstitution of India – Articles 226 and 32 – Habeas corpus petition – Burden
of proof on the State – Court not justified in dismissing such a petition merely
on ground of imperfect pleadings of the petitioner – Preventive DetentionIn Rekha vs. State of T. Nadu Tr.Sec. to Govt.& Anr.
reported in 2011 (5) SCC 244 :
A. Preventive Detention – Detention order – Detenu already in jail or
custody – Legality of detention order – Real possibility of release on
bail – Pendency of bail application – Relevance – Though bail
application must be pending to justify detention order, even in
absence of pending bail application, detention order can still be
sustained if detaining authority reaches conclusion about likelihood
of detenu’s release on bail on basis of similar cases in which co-
accused had been granted bail and authority furnishes details in thatPage | 9
regard – Bail application not filed but detention order passed on
ground that relatives of detenu were proposing to move bail
application in higher courts since “in similar cases bail was granted
after lapse of time” – No details of “similar case” provided – Held,
such bald statement being mere ipse dixit of detaining authority, not
sufficient to sustain detention order- T.N. Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (14 of 1982), S. 3(1)B. Preventive Detention- Detention order – Legality-Grounds for
challenging, reiteratedIn Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail vs State Of Maharashtra &
Ors. reported in 2013 (4) SCC 435;
A. Preventive Detention – Representation to appropriate
authority/Government – Independent consideration of representation by
detaining authority – How to be established – If established in present case
– Said issue raised for first time before Supreme Court – Effect
-Held, whether representation is considered by detaining authority
independently or not is for detaining authority to say on affidavit since it is
within exclusive personal knowledge of detaining authority – Had this point
been raised in writ petition, detaining authority would have dealt with it in
her affidavit – Absence of categorical statement in affidavit of detaining
authority that she had independently considered representation, in such
circumstances, irrelevant – No inference can be drawn that detaining
authority did not consider representation independently – Besides, in
affidavit detaining authority had stated that representation was processed
through Assistant, Under-Secretary and Deputy Secretary concerned who
had merely put their signatures on file and entire procedure was completedPage | 10
within four days – Thus, submission that detaining authority had not
considered representation independently and was swayed by endorsements
made by subordinate officers, rejected –Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, S. 3(Paras 5 and 11)
B. Preventive Detention – Detention order – Delay in passing or serving or
executing detention order or arresting detenu/Stale order or grounds –
Delay in issuance of detention order – Effect – Detention order, reiterated,
cannot be quashed where delay is satisfactorily explained and subjective
satisfaction of detaining authority is genuinely reached – On facts held,
explanation given by detaining authority was satisfactory and reasonable,
and hence, detention order is valid – Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, S. 3(Para 13)
C. Preventive Detention – Detention order – Delay in passing or serving or
executing detention order or arresting detenu/Stale order or grounds –
Delay in execution of detention order – Detenu, being resident of Mangalore,
relevant documents forwarded to State of Karnataka, and hence, detention
order dt. 16-4-2012 served only on 10-5-2012 – Thus held, there was no
unexplained delay in execution of detention order – Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, S. 3(Para 13)
D. Preventive Detention – Representation to appropriate
authority/Government – Delay in consideration/disposal of representation-
Expeditious disposal of detenu’s representation – Constitutional obligation
cast on Government – Principles governing – Reiterated – Unexplained delay,
is fatal – Test is not duration or range of delay, but how it is explainedPage | 11
-On facts held, detaining authority and sponsoring authority had properly
explained time-lag between 6-7-2012 i.e. date when representation was
received by detaining authority and date of communication of rejection to
detenu i.e. on 30-7-2012 – Representation was taken up for consideration
as soon as it was received and dealt with continuously until a final decision
was taken and communicated to detenu – Undoubtedly, time was taken to
obtain parawise comments from sponsoring authority, which is permissible
– Thus, time-lag between receipt of representation till its consideration and
communication of rejection to the detenu is properly explained –
Constitution of India, Art. 22(5)(Paras 16 and 17)
E. Preventive Detention – Representation to appropriate
authority/Government – Delay in transmitting representation to detaining
authority by jail authority – Effect of – Representation received by
Superintendent of Jail on 23-6-2012 and by detaining authority on 6-7-2012
– Time-lag between 23-6-2012 and 6-7-2012 was unexplained – Such delay,
held, renders continued detention of detenu illegal but not detention order
dt. 16-4-2012-Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, S. 3(Paras 19 to 24)
F. Preventive Detention- Detention order – Basis of detention – Gravity of
offence – Reiterated, irrelevant in preventive detention matter(Paras 4.3 and 10)
G. Constitution of India-Arts. 136, 226 and 32-Issue of writs – Habeas
corpus-Issue of writ of habeas corpus and preventive detention – Imperfect
pleadings – Held, habeas corpus petition cannot be dismissed on ground of
imperfect pleadings – Hence, plea that there was no independent
consideration of representation by detaining authority, though neitherPage | 12
raised in petition nor urged before High Court, allowed to be agitated,
though rejected on merits(Paras 5 and 6)
H. Practice and Procedure – Conduct of counsel – Supreme Court at close of
hearing, directing counsel for petitioner to submit list of authorities in
support of his submissions, but instead, counsel citing four decisions of
Supreme Court under caption “new points” which points were also not
formulated – Strong disapproval expressed of such conduct but cited cases
considered, as instant case pertained to preventive detention order –
Preventive Detention – Interpretation/Application of preventive detention
law/Precedents(Paras 7 and 12)
In Mehrunissa vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(1981) 2 SCC 709;
Preventive Detention – Copies of material documents referred to in
the grounds of detention cannot be denied to the detenu on the mere
ground that the detenu was already aware of the contents of those
documents – Held, failure to furnish such copies to the detenu on demand
vitiated the detention – Constitution of India, Article 22(5)
In Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi vs State of M. P. &
Anr. reported in (1983) 4 SCC 443;
Preventive Detention – Grounds of detention – Stale grounds – Proximity of
time between events referred to in grounds and passing of detention order
– Determination of – Two old incidents of more than 5 and 2 years prior to
the date of order of detention mentioned in the grounds – All the incidents
Page | 13
proximate to each other showing history of prejudicial activity of the detenu
– Order of detention, if vitiated – National Security Act, 1980, Section 3(2)
In the case of Shyam Bahadur Basnet vs. The State of
Manipur & 3 Ors. in W.P.(Crl.) No. 17 of 2023 decided on 28.02.2023
and also in the case of Md. Aktar Khan vs. State of Manipur in
WP(Cril.) No. 37 of 2023 decided on 19.04.2023 and in detail, the issues
have been anticipated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
judgment of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1950 SC
27.
However, all the relevant provisions have been addressed in
detail in the aforesaid judgment and therefore, in this matter, it does not
arise for bringing in detail about the issues and also the perusal of the FIR
which has led against the accused in the FIR. However, the accused is
required to be present and therefore, it is said that without expressing any
opinion on merits of this matter, it is deemed appropriate to state that the
order which has been rendered by the District Magistrate and also the order
which was confirmed the concerned authority dated 27.05.2025 are found
to infirmity and also to be violation of Section 8 of the National Security Act,
1980 and therefore, it is deemed appropriate for intervention by the
aforesaid detention family and consequently, request for setting the order
rendered by the detaining authorities and inclusive of the confirmation order
dated 27.05.2025.
Page | 14
[20] In view of the above reasons and findings, we are to proceed
to pass the following orders :
1) the orders rendered by the District Magistrate dated
07.05.2025 and inclusive of the confirmation order dated
27.05.2025 are hereby set aside;
2) whatever observation is made in this matter it can’t
pendente lite for to proceed in further in case of the
accused are required to face the trial for the offences
which has been lugged in the FIR and also lugged in the
charge sheet framed against the accused.
[21] Whereas, keeping in view the contentious contentions which
have been made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner who is
none other than the mother of the detenu/accused but the documents
which have been perused and considered by the detaining authority and
those documents which have been facilitated i.e., copy of the FIR No.39(11)
2007 IPS for the offences under Section 20 UA(P) Act, 1967.
[22] That a copy of the Manipur local daily “Poknafam” dated
08.03.1999 and theses documents has not been facilitated by the District
Magistrate whereby he was rendering the detention orders that the
document is required to be facilitated keeping in view the provision of
Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980. This contention is also taken
by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for seeking intervention of
Page | 15
the orders rendered by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
[23] Whereas, keeping in view the submission made by the learned
senior counsel Mr. L. Shashibhushan for the petitioner and so also referring
Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, the contention is taken by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner for seeking intervention of the
orders rendered by the District Magistrate are found to be justifiable.
Accordingly, it is deserving for setting aside the detention order rendered
by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur.
[24] The above reliances have been referred and wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has addressed the issues in detail in respect
of the scope of the provision and law and therefore, it is deemed appropriate
that the detention order which has been rendered by the District Magistrate,
Imphal East District, Manipur dated 07.05.2025 is suffered from infirmity
and consequently, it is set aside in the aforesaid reasons and findings.
[24] The detenu/accused shall be released on bail if he is not
required in any other case.
[25] Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby disposed it of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Page | 16
[ad_1]
Source link