Meghalaya High Court
Shri Benhur M Sangma vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 14 July, 2015
Bench: Uma Nath Singh, T Nandakumar Singh
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
WA. No. 22 of 2014
in WP(Crl) No.12 of 2013
Shri Benhur M.Sangma,
Son of (L) Frit Momin,
Resident of P.O. & P.S:
Chandmari, Tura,
West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
Presently lodged at Tura District Jail,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
....... Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Meghalaya
Represented by Commissioner & Secretary,
Political Department, Shillong.
2. The District Magistrate,
West Garo Hills, Tura.
3. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Home, New Delhi.
....... Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T NANDAKUMAR SINGH For the appellant : Ms. S.G.Momin, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. N.D.Chullai, Sr. GA Mr. S.Sen Gupta, GA Mr. R.Deb Nath, Adv.
Date of hearing : 25-06-2015
Date of Judgment : 14-07.2015
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Justice T. Nandakumar Singh)
Heard Ms. S.G.Momin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned Sr. GA, assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. R.Deb Nath, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent No.3.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-03-2014 passed in the WP(Crl) No. 12 of 2013 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge held that the original records before the Court shows that detention order was confirmed vide order dated 04-12-2013 on the recommendation of the Advisory Board but the learned Single Judge did not consider the other grounds for assailing the impugned detention order. The appellant/detenu (Shri Benhur M.Sangma) is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills District, Tura in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Section 3 (1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, (for short MPDA), 1995, for detaining the appellant/detenu, (ii) the impugned order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 10-10-2013 under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA, 1995, for approving the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 and (iii) impugned confirmation order dated 04-12-2013.
3
3. The object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence. It is resorted when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the persons detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. The framers of the Constitution, being aware that preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right to personal liberty, took care to incorporate, in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22, certain minimum safeguards for the protection of persons sought to be preventively detained. These safeguards are required to be "zealously watched and enforced by the Court". The Apex Court in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab: (1981) 4 SCC 481 observed that:
"..... May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralyzed the Indian economy. But the loss of preventive detention affords only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set-up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus......." (Ref:- Para 4 of the SCC in Rattan Singh's case (Supra)."
4. In Vijay Narayan Singh v. Bihar : (1984) 3 SCC 14, Chinnapa Redy, J observed "our Constitution does not give a carte blanche to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter .... Preventive detention is considered so treacherous and such an anathema to civilized thought and democratic polity that safeguards against undue exercise of the power to 4 detain without trial have been built into the Constitution itself and incorporated as Fundamental Right ..... when demanded, where there has been any excessive detention, that is, whether the limits set by the Constitution and the Legislature have been transgressed. Preventive detention is not beyond judicial scrutiny."
5. It is fairly settled that jurisdiction of preventive detention is "suspicious jurisdiction" based on suspicion and an action is taken with the view to preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the detention order. Interference by a court of law at that stage must be an exception rather than a rule. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharastra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande: (2008) 3 SCC 613 held that the Court must be conscious and mindful of the fact that jurisdiction preventive detention is "suspicious jurisdiction"
based on suspicion and an action is taken with the view to preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the detention order.
Interference by a court of law at that stage, must be an exception rather than a rule because the exercise can be undertaken by a writ court with extreme care, caution and circumspection. Para 63 of the SCC in Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande's case (Supra) reads as follows:-
"63. From the foregoing discussion, in our judgment, the law appears to be fairly well settled and it is this. As a general rule, an order of 5 detention passed by a detaining authority under the relevant "preventive detention" law cannot be set aside by a writ court at the pre-execution or pre-arrest stage unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances specified in Addl. Secy. to the Govt. of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496: 1992 SCC (Cri) 301. The Court must be conscious and mindful of the fact that this is a "suspicious jurisdiction" i.e. jurisdiction based on suspicion and an action is taken "with a view to preventing"
a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the relevant detention law. Interference by a court of law at that stage must be an exception rather than a rule and such an exercise can be undertaken by a writ court with extreme care, caution and circumspection. A detenu cannot ordinarily seek a writ of mandamus if he does not surrender and is not served with an order of detention and the grounds in support of such order".
6. The concise fact of the case, sufficient for deciding the present appeal, is recapitulated. The appellant/detenu (Shri Benhur M. Sangma) was arrested in connection with (i) Tura P.S. Case No. 115(6) 2013, (ii) Tura P.S. Case No. 116(6) 2013,
(iii) Tura P.S. Case No. 114(6) 2013, (iv) Tura P.S. Case No. 117(6) 2013 and (v) Tura P.S. Case No. 120(6) 2013 on 08-09- 2013, and the appellant/detenu was remanded to custody in connection with the said cases. While the appellant/detenu was in custody in connection with the said case, the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 3 (1) of the MPDA, 1995 issued the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 for detaining the detenu under MPDA, 1995. The impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 clearly mentioned that the detenu has been in custody in connection with the said cases and also that if Shri Benhur M.Sangma is allowed to remain 6 at large, he would act in the manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and threat to the life and property of the citizens and it is necessary that he be detained. It will be more profitable for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ appeal to reproduce the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 which read as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE::
WEST GARO HILLS DISTRICT :: TURA No. CB.36/13/53 Dated Tura, the 29th September, 2013 ORDER UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE MEGHALAYA PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1995 Whereas, it has been brought to my notice that a person known as Benhur M. Sangma alias Gogo, S/o (L) Frit Momin of Wadanang, PO. Chandmari, PS. Tura, West Garo Hills District is now in judicial custody;
And whereas, as indicated by police records, he is a anti-social and a delinquent involved in many criminal activities of communal nature in the district thereby causing communal disturbance, communal disharmony, dissension in society and insecurity among the general public;
And whereas, he has been primarily involved in the recent violent mob attack at Tura Civil Hospital on 21st June, 2013 resulting in damage of Government Hospital properties including police vehicles and budgeoning to death of innocent labourer with criminal assaults on several others reason of their religion and ethnicity causing grievous hurt to them and in the process fanning the flames of communal hatred and mayhem;
And whereas, Shri Benhur M. Sangma, as per police investigation is the chief culprit and instigator of the communal violence and mob attack directed against innocent civilians and migrant labourers leading to a situation wherein curfew had to be clamped for several days causing immense hardship and suffering to the common masses;7
And whereas, as result of the violence and communal propaganda masterminded by him, there was a flight of several thousands of migrant labourers and construction workers of a particular community from different parts of Garo Hills at the risk of their lives and being attacked and assaulted in the process which can also be attributed to the campaign of hate engineered by Shri Benhur M Sangma;
And whereas, Shri Benhur M. Sangma, was instrumental in organizing and mobilizing the mob at Wadanang and Chandmari which subsequently marched towards Tura Civil Hospital and the unruly crowd, stopped the requisitioned TATA Winger No. ML 07 B-2794 at the hospital junction which was returning from Araimile BH after dropping the force personnel and dragged out the driver and assaulted him badly causing severe injuries on his person and another unidentified person was brutally and mercilessly attacked by the mob lead by Shri Benhur M Sangma and killed in front of the Hospital on the A.P.M.T road who was later identified as Akibur Ali @ Munsi of Teldhala, PS Mankachar, Assam for which police have implicated him as borne out in the case registered with police stations viz:
1. Complt. Dr. Mardondor Hooroo, Superindent of Tura Civil Hospital lodged an FIR that on 21/6/2013 at around 7:30 PM a violent mob numbering 180-200 came to the Emergency Room of Tura Civil Hospital demanding custody of the three Muslim youths to sentence them for their guilt. In order to protect their lives security measure was taken up and force deployed at Tura Civil Hospital. The mob became violent and pelted stones, bricks and bottles at the security personnel, thereby obstructing the security personnel and medical officers and damaged the hospital premises and also tried to forcibly enter the Emergency Room of the Tura Civil Hospital. During the course of investigation, the subject was found to be one of the main instigators of the crimes. In this connection a case has been registered at Tura PS vide Tura PS C/No. 115(6)2013 U/S 147/148/149/447/353/336/427 IPC.
2. Complt. SI A. Phawa of Araimile Beat House lodged an FIR that on the night of 21/6/13 at around 11:00 PM a violent mob numbering about 200 gathered at the Tura Civil Hospital compound and pelted stones, 8 bricks and bottles at the security personnel and also obstructed him and his staff from discharging their lawful duties and also damaged the windshield of vehicle No. ML02-1102 Gypsy allotted to Araimile BH which was parked in front of the Emergency building of Tura Civil Hospital. The mob also turned over the vehicle and tried to set it on fire. During the course of investigation, the subject was found to be one of the main instigators of the crime. In this connection a case has been registered at Tura PS vide Tura PS C/No. 116(6) 2013 U/S 147/148/149/447/353/336/427/436/511 IPC.
3. Complt. Shri Curtin R.Marak of Nigam Akong, Opp, Old SSB Camp, PO. Araimile lodged an FIR that on the night of 21st June, 2013 at about 9:20 PM unknown persons attacked his vehicle No. ML-08/A-0757 (bus) which was requisitioned by the Superintendent of Police, Tura vide letter No. RO(G)MT/Requisition dated 10.06.2013, meant for Coy Commandant of CRPF, Camp Jengjal, West Garo Hills for carrying CRPF personnel for emergency deployment at Tura Civil Hospital, while passing along the 100 bedded hospital, Tura by pelting stones at the vehicle, damaging windshield, glasses of both sides, railings etc. (approximate value of damage Rs. 55,000/-).
Though all 11 CRPF personnel inside the bus not injured, Shri Derosh Sangma, driver sustained injuries. During the course of investigation, the subject was found to be one of the main instigators of the crime. In this connection a case has been registered at Tura PS vide Tura PS C/No. 114(6)2013 U/S 353/336/326/327/34 IPC.
4. Complt. SI. Arwis Phawa, I/C of Araimile Beat House lodged an FIR that on the night of 21.06.2013 at about 11:30 PM one person namely Akibur Ali @ Munshi of village Teldhala, P.S. Mankachar, District Dhubri (Assam), was coming from Hawakhana side towards New Tura and on reaching at Dermile near Tura Civil Hospital on the A.M.P.T. road a violent mob caught him and beaten him to death at the spot. During the course of investigation, the subject was found to be one of the main instigators of the crime. In this connection a case has been registered at Tura PS vide Tura PS C/No. 117(6)2013 U/S 147/148/149/302 IPC.
9
5. Complt. Insp. Ayub Khan, O/C E/67 Bn CRPF, Jengjal Airport, West Garo Hills lodged an FIR that on 21.6.2013 one platoon of E/67 Bn CRPF from Jengjal Airport O/P Jengjal proceeded towards Tura for law and order duty as per requisition received from I/C Jengjal under direction of SP. Tura in connection with attempt rape/molestation case. Accordingly, detailed pltn. Proceeded towards Tura Civil Hospital in two civil requisitioned vehicles from Police viz. 1 mini bus No. ML-08-A-0757, white in colour, driver Derose Sangma, owner C.R.Marak of Tura, 1 Winger No. 07-B-2794, while colour, driver Manzoor Ali, owner Ansari Ali of Krishnai, Assam. On reaching at Tura Civil Hospital, Dermile Tura between 8:30-9PM an enraged and violent mob numbering approximately 250 blocked the road with stones, pelted stones, bricks, glass, bricks on the vehicle and obstructed the vehicle which led to confusion to driver of winger, who lost control of the vehicle and met with an accident causing minor injury on my left hand fingers & forehead and also minor injury to No. 115137284 CT/G Tinku Sharma of E/67 Bn and both the vehicles were badly damaged. The mini bus could escape from the spot but the driver of the winger Manzoor Ali beaten up seriously by the mob and also torched the winger along with „Riot drill‟ equipments kept in the vehicle viz. Helmet 03 Nos. cane (CRPF lathi) - 05 Nos. cane shield (chabbri) -05 Nos, body protection - 05 Nos. were burnt into ashes. During the course of investigation, the subject was found to be one of the main instigators of the crime. In this connection a case has been registered at Tura PS vide Tura PS C/No. 120 (6) 2013 U/S 147/ 148/149/353/336/436/ 326/327 IPC. And whereas, I am satisfied that if Shri Benhur M. Sangma is allowed to remain at large, he would act in the manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and threat to the life and property of the citizens and it is necessary that he be detained and being so satisfied;
NOW, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred upon me under section 3(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995, I, Shri Pravin Bakshi, IAS, District Magistrate, West Garo Hills District, Tura do hereby direct that Shri Benhur M. Sangma be detained with immediate effect and until further orders at the 10 District Jail, West Garo Hills, Tura under provisions of the aforementioned Act;
Further, Shri Benhur M. Sangma shall, in accordance with article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with section 8(1) of the MPDA, 1995 have every right to make a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura, which right is in addition to and independent of his right to make representation before the State Govt. i.e. to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner & Secretary, Political Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Meghalaya Secretariat, Shillong, to the Advisory Board, Guwahati and also to the Central Government (Government of India) i.e. to the Secretary (Home), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-1.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 29th day of September, 2013.
Sd/-
(Pravin Bakshi) District Magistrate West Garo Hills, Tura."
7. The impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 was later on approved by the Government of Meghalaya on 10-10- 2013 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA, 1995.
8. The appellant/detenu filed the writ appeal assailing the
(i) the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013, (ii) the approval order dated 10-10-2013 and (iii) the confirmation order dated 04-12-2013 only on two grounds: (1) there is non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and (2) subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that "if Shri Benhur M. Sangma is allowed to remain at large" he would act in the manner prejudicial to maintenance of public 11 order and threat to the life and property of the citizens is only ipse dixit of the detaining authority.
9. The respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed the affidavit-in- opposition but in the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents No. 1 and 2 did not mention that bail application had been filed for releasing the detenu on bail in connection with the cases mentioned above.
10. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors : (1995) 4 SCC 51 observed that while discharging constitutional obligation to protect fundamental right of the people, more specifically right to personal liberty, the court would not be influenced by the nature of the activity of the detenu. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The safeguards enshrined in clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 22 are required to be jealousy watched and enforced by the Court.
11. The Apex Court through Hon'ble Justice H.L. Dattu in Pebam Ningol Mikol Mikoi Devi vs. State of Manipur and Others: (2010) 9 SCC 618 observed that :-
"3. Individual liberty is a cherished right, one of the most valuable fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens of this country. On "liberty", William Shakespeare, the great play writer, has observed that "a man is master of his liberty." Benjamin Franklin goes even further and says that "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both". The importance of protecting liberty and freedom is explained by the famous lawyer 12 Clarence Darrow as "you can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man‟s freedom; you can be free only if I am free." In India, the utmost importance is given to life and personal liberty of an individual, since we believe personal liberty is the paramount essential to human dignity and human happiness.
4. The Constitution of India protects the liberty of an individual. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. In matters of preventive detention such as this, as there is deprivation of liberty without trial, and subsequent safeguards are provided in Article 22 of the Constitution. They are, when any person is detained pursuant to an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order is required to communicate the grounds on the basis of which, the order has been made and give him an opportunity to make a representation against the order as soon as possible. It thus, cannot be doubted that the constitutional framework envisages protection of liberty as essential, and makes the circumstances under which it can be deprived."
12. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Another (2003) 8 SCC 342 held that even in the case of a person in custody, detention order can validly be passed subject to 3 (three) principles. Para 14 of the SCC in Paul Manickam's case (supra) read as follows:
"14. .... The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. (See N. Meera Rani v. Govt. of T.N. :13
(1989) 4 SCC 418 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 732 : AIR 1989 SC 2027 and Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India : (1990) 1 SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 249 : AIR 1990 SC 1196 . The point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 88 : AIR 1991 SC 1640). The principles were set out as follows: even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed : (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities; and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. In the case at hand the order of detention and grounds of detention show an awareness of custody and/or a possibility of release on bail."
13. For detaining a detenu already in custody under preventive detention law, the detaining authority shall have the subjective satisfaction that there is every possibility of releasing the detenu on bail and on being released, the detenu would in all probably indulge in prejudicial activities.
14. The Apex Court in Sunila Jain vs. Union of India and Another (2006) 3 SCC 321 held that detaining authority on the basis of the materials placed before him, shall come to the satisfaction that a detenu is likely to be released on bail and there cannot be such satisfaction by the detaining authority without taking into consideration of the bail application and also order passed in the bail application. The Apex Court further held that the detaining authority could come to the satisfaction, even if the detenu does not file 14 the bail application that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in case the competent authority granted the bail in similar cases i.e. case similar with the case for which the detenu is in custody.
15. The Apex Court in Senthamilselvi vs. State of T.N. and Others (2006) 5 SCC 676 held that:
"10. ...The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. The appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi : (2002) 7 SCC 120 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 1627. The factual scenario in that case was entirely different. In fact, five bail applications filed had been already rejected. In the background this Court observed that it was not a "normal" case. The High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant."
16. The Apex Court in Rekha Devi vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244 clearly held that in the absence of bail application, detaining authority without any materials cannot come to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. However, in similar cases if the 15 accused had been granted bail, the detaining authority for the sufficient reasons still could come to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.
17. In the present case, the detenu did not file the application for bail nor had the co-accused been released on bail nor the order for granting bail to the accused in the similar cases. Paras 7, 10, 11, 12, 25 of the SCC in Rekha's case (supra) read as follows:-
"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 court concerned. Neither the date of the alleged bail orders has been mentioned therein, nor the bail application number, the co-accused on the same case, nor whether the bail orders were passed in respect of other, 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.
10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number whether the bail order was passed in respects of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the 16 present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored.
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.
12. Moreover, even if a bail application of the petitioner relating to the same case was pending in a criminal case the detention order can still be challenged on various grounds e.g. that the act in question related to law and order and not public order, that there was no relevant material on which the detention order was passed, that there were mala fides, that the order was not passed by a competent authority, that the condition precedent for exercise of the power did not exist, that the subjective satisfaction was irrational, that there was non-application of mind, that the grounds are vague, indefinite, irrelevant, extraneous, non- existent or stale, that there was delay in passing the detention order or delay in executing it or delay in deciding the representation of the detenu, that the order was not approved by the Government, that there was failure to refer the case to the Advisory Board or that the reference was belated, etc.
25. In this connection, it may be noted that there is nothing on the record to indicate whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the bail application of the accused was pending on the date when the detention order was passed on 8-4- 2010. On the other hand, in para 4 of the grounds of detention it is mentioned that "Thiru. Ramakrishnan is in remand in Crime No. 132 of 2010 and he has not moved any bail application so far". Thus, the detaining authority was not even aware whether a bail application of the accused was pending when he passed the detention order, rather the detaining authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the accused was pending but in similar cases bail had been granted by the courts. We have already stated above that no details of the alleged similar cases have been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained."17
18. The Apex Court in Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima vs. State of Manipur: (2012) 2 SCC 176 held that:
"24. Article 21 of the Constitution enjoins that:
"21. Protection of life and personal liberty. - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
In the instant case, although the power is vested with the authorities concerned, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the detaining authority cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 (2) of the Constitution.
27. As has been observed in various cases of similar nature by this Court, the personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution in Part III thereof. The State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal laws as also under the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order, warranting the issuance of such an order. An individual incident of an offence under the Penal code, however heinous, is insufficient to make out a case for issuance of an order of preventive detention.
28. In our view, the detaining authority acted rather casually in the matter in issuing the order of detention and the High Court also appears to have missed the right to liberty as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 22 (2) thereof, as well as the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
19. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that there is non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority in passing the impugned 18 detention order and also that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that "if Shri Benhur M.Sangma is allowed to remain at large" for passing the impugned order under MPDA, 1995 is nothing but ipse dixit of the detaining authority. This Court is also of the view that sufficient materials had been made out in the present writ appeal for interfering with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-03- 2014 passed in WP(Crl) No. 12 of 2013; and accordingly the impugned order dated 13-03-2014 is hereby quashed and set aside.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013, impugned approval order dated 10- 10-2013 and impugned confirmation order dated 04-12-2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. Thus, WA. No. 22/2014 is allowed. The appellant/detenu, Shri Benhur M.Sangma, is accordingly set at liberty forthwith if he is, otherwise, not required in connection with any other case(s).
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE S.Rynjah