Manipur High Court
Mayanglambam Dhanbir Singh vs State Of Manipur & 3 Ors on 11 July, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
JOHN Digitally signed by
JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.07.11
18:08:25 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(Cril.)No.23 of 2024
Mayanglambam Dhanbir Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur & 3 Ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(K. Somashekar, C.J. & Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.)
11.07.2025.
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Jugindro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA for respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 and
Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned CGSC for respondent No.3.
[2] The present petition has been filed challenging the detention
order passed by the authority detaining the petitioner under provision of
[3] The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested on
10.10.2024 by a team of Commando, Imphal West in connection with the
FIR No.55(10) 2024 IBG U/s 17/20 UA(P) Act and thereafter in connection
with the said criminal case, the petitioner was detained under Judicial
Custody. Thereafter, the petitioner was formally arrested again in
2
connection in FIR No. 121(3)2024 LPS PS U/S 17//20 UA (P) Act on
18.10.2024.
[4] It has been submitted that while the petitioner is in the Judicial
Custody, the District Magistrate Imphal West Manipur issued an order dated
14.11.2024 ordering for detaining the petitioner under the Preventive
Detention in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section 3 of Section
3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The said order passed by the District
Magistrate, Imphal West was approved by the Secretariat Home
Department by issuing an order dated 22.11.2024 and subsequently, by an
order dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Secretariat, Home Department
Government of Manipur, the detention of the petitioner was confirmed and
ordering for detaining the petitioner for a period of 12(twelve) months from
the date of detention. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the
said detention orders issued by the detaining authorities.
[5] Even though several grounds have been raised on behalf of
the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid detention orders,
the learned counsel for petitioner advanced only one ground for quashing
and setting aside the said detention order. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the District Magistrate,
Imphal West issued the impugned detention order dated 14.11.2024 while
the petitioner was still in judicial custody.
[6] It has been submitted that even though in the detention order,
it is mentioned that an application on behalf of the petitioner had been filed
for releasing him on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR case, nothing
3
was mentioned by the detaining authority in the impugned detention order
about the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. It has been
further submitted that before passing of the impugned detention order dated
14.11.2024, the bail application being Cril. Misc(B) case No.202 of 2024
filed in the court of Special Judge (NIA), Imphal West in connection with the
said FIR case had already been rejected by the court by passing an order
dated 06.11.2024.
[7] The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that
such factum of rejecting the bail application before passing of the impugned
detention order was not taken into consideration by the detaining authority
while passing the impugned detention order. According to the petitioner, the
detaining authority had issued the impugned detention order without
application of mind and without arriving at his subjective satisfaction that
the petitioner is likely to be release on bail. The learned counsel accordingly
submitted that such arbitrary action of the detaining authority vitiates the
impugned detention order and accordingly, a prayer has been made for
quashing and set aside the impugned detention order and for directing the
authority to release the petitioner from his detention.
[8] Mr. TH. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the State
respondents produced and placed before this Court the relevant
Government records in connection with the detention order and fairly
submitted that a copy of the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Special
Judge(NIA), Imphal West in Cril. Misc(B) case No.202 of 2024 was not
placed on record. The learned GA further submitted that he has verified
4
from the detaining authority that the factum of rejection of the bail
application filed by the petitioner was not brought to his knowledge and the
learned GA accordingly submitted that any appropriate order as deemed fit
and proper may be passed by this court.
[9] We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and carefully examined all the materials
available on record. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to
the fact that before passing the impugned detention order dated
14.11.2024, the bail application submitted by the petitioner was already
rejected by the concerned court by passing an order dated 06.11.2024 and
as such, we are of the considered view that there was no likelihood of the
petitioner being released on bail. Since the authority did not take into
consideration such undisputed facts that there was no likelihood of the
petitioner being released on bail in connection with the criminal case
pending against him, we arrived to the conclusion that the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority about the likelihood of the
petitioner being released on bail is unfounded and is merely the ipse dixit
of the detaining authority. In the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
through Secretary to Government & Anr. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244, it
has been, inter alia, held by the Hon’ble apex court at paras 7,8,10,11 & 27
as under:
“7.A perusal of the above statement in para 4 of the grounds of
detention shows that no details have been given about the alleged
similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the concerned
court. Neither the date of the alleged bail orders has been mentioned
therein, nor the bail application number, nor whether the bail orders
5were passed in respect of the co-accused on the same case, nor
whether the bail orders were passed in respect of other co- accused in
cases on the same footing as the case of the accused. All that has been
stated in the grounds of detention is that “in similar cases bails were
granted by the courts”. In our opinion, in the absence of details this
statement is mere ipse dixit, and cannot be relied upon. In our opinion,
this itself is sufficient to vitiate the detention order.
“8. It has been held in T.V. Sravanan V. State, A. Shanthi V. Govt.
of T.N. Rajesh Gulati v. Govt of NCT of Delhi etc. if no bail application
was pending and the detenue was already, in fact, in jail in a criminal
case, the detention order under the preventive detention law is illegal.
These decisions appear to have followed the Constitution Bench
decision in Haradhan Saha Vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC
198, wherein it has been observed (SCC p. 209, para 34):
“34. ….where the concerned person is actually in jail custody at the
time when an order of detention is passed against him and is not
likely to be released for a fair length of time, it may be possible to
contend that there could be no satisfaction on the part of the
detaining authority as to the likelihood of such a person indulging in
activities which would jeopardise the security of the State or public
order.”
“11. In our opinion, the detention order in question only contains ipse
dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming
out on bail and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence, the
detention order in question cannot be sustained.
27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on
bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application
which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending,
then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on
bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can
be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case
stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the
detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of
the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his
6is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground.
However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise
the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed.”
[10] In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court
categorically held that without any material available on record and without
ascertaining the factual position about the accused/detenue being released
on bail, the action of the detaining authority in arriving at his subjective
satisfaction that the said accused is likelihood to be released on bail is ipse
dixit and such action on the part of the detaining authority vitiates the
impugned detention order.
[11] Taking into consideration the above stated undisputed facts
and also the principle law laid by the Hon’ble Apex court in case of Rekha
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu(supra), we are satisfied that the impugned
detention orders dated 14.11.2024, the impugned approval order dated
22.11.2024 and the impugned confirmation order dated 11.12.2024 is not
sustainable in the eye of law as the same have been issued ultra vires the
fundamental and constitutional mandate provided under Article 21 and 22
of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the impugned orders
14.11.2024, the impugned approval order dated 22.11.2024 and the
impugned confirmation order dated 11.12.2024 are hereby quashed and
set aside. Consequently, the authorities are directed to release the
detenue/accused forthwith if his continued detention is not otherwise
required in connection with any other pending cases.
7
[12] However, whatever the observations made in the writ petition
relating to the detention order passed by the authorities and the same shall
not come in a way for disposal of any bail application filed by the
petitioner/accused in the court of law as where the proceedings are pending
relating to the FIR initiated against the petitioner/accused.
[13] Accordingly, made an observations. [14] Wherein as the similar issue has already been addressed in
detail by a judgement of AK Gopalan Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR
1950 SC 27, and therefore, the impugned order which has been challenged
under this writ petitioner filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for challenging the detention order rendered by the
District Magistrate/competent authority and therefore it does not required in
detail discussions as the issue involved in this writ petition for protection to
the petitioner/accused keeping in view the scope of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Accordingly made an observations.
[15] With aforesaid findings and directions, the present writ petition
is disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom
[ad_1]
Source link