Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10711 (GAU)

Shikatoli W/o Aloto Aye v. State of Nagaland

2026-05-25

Unni Krishnan Nair, Yarenjungla Longkumer

body2026
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : (Y. Longkumer, J.) Heard Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent No.2/Union of India. 2. In the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention imposed upon the detenue Aloto Aye, by the Impugned Detention Order dated 23 rd January, 2026, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland by invoking powers under provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (herein after referred to as NSA for short). 3. The petitioner is the wife of the detenue who is presently detained under the NSA and lodged at District Jail, Dimapur. 4. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 17.12.2026 stating that on 16.12.2025 a telephonic information was received at the West P.S Dimapur informing that on 15.12.2025 unknown miscreants entered the residence of one Mr. Imlimeren and forcefully abducted him and 4 (four) of his friends and some gunshots were also heard. During the inquiry it was ascertained that the unknown miscreants belong to the NSCN(K) group. Accordingly, the West PS Case No.0122/25 U/S 3(5)/140(3)/127(8)/308(2)/61(1) of the BNS R/W 25(1) (A)/27(2) Arms Act R/W Section 7/8 of the Nagaland Security Regulations was registered. During interrogation the name of the detenue was revealed by one of the co-accused. Accordingly, the detenue was arrested on 29.12.2025 in connection with the aforementioned case and was forwarded to judicial custody. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland vide letter dated 22.01.2026 put up a proposal for detention of the detenue before the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland. The Commissioner of Police & District Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland, by the Impugned Order dated 23.01.2026 issued the detention order against the detenue under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 and directed that the detenue be detained and kept at the Central Jail, Dimapur. 6. Thereafter, the Government of Nagaland vide order dated 02.02.2026 approved the detention of the detenue. The detenue submitted a representation dated 17.03.2026 against his detention order praying for revocation of the detention order dated 23.01.2026. The Government of Nagaland in the Home Department by an order dated 24.03.2026 rejected the representation of the detenue. The Central Government also rejected the representation which was conveyed vide wireless message dated 24.03.2026. 7. The detenue submitted a representation dated 17.03.2026 against his detention order praying for revocation of the detention order dated 23.01.2026. The Government of Nagaland in the Home Department by an order dated 24.03.2026 rejected the representation of the detenue. The Central Government also rejected the representation which was conveyed vide wireless message dated 24.03.2026. 7. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland vide Order dated 14.04.2026 issued confirmation order detaining the detenue for another period of 3 (three) months from 23.04.2026 till 22.07.2026. 8. Mr. A. Sophie, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned detention order of the detenue deserved the interference of this Court, in view of the fact that the provisions of the NSA had been grossly violated in the instant case. 9. The learned counsel submits that the detention order dated 23.01.2026 does not mention anywhere that the detaining authority had reasons to believe that there is real possibility that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. 10. Learned counsel also submits that the detenue has been booked under non- bailable sections and he had not move any application for bail. Therefore, the detention order was passed mechanically without application of mind. 11. Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order was passed on 23.01.2026 and therefore, as per Section 10 of the NSA, the State Government ought to have made a reference to the Advisory Board on or before 14.02.2026. However, the reference was made to the Advisory Board along with the detention order and the grounds and detenue was produced before the Advisory Board only on 21.02.2026, thereby, violating the mandate of Section 10 of the NSA. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the detenue has been booked under appropriate provision of law in the Criminal Case i.e., West P.S Case No.0122/25 and accordingly, he will face the trial and will be punished if proven guilty under the charged sections of law, and as such, the impugned detention order is unwarranted and uncalled for. He submits that the violation of the provision of the NSA by the respondent authorities while detaining a citizen would amount to a violation of rights of the petitioner under Article 21 & Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the violation of the provision of the NSA by the respondent authorities while detaining a citizen would amount to a violation of rights of the petitioner under Article 21 & Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case there is an apparent violation of the provision of the NSA as well as non-compliance with law laid down by the Apex Court and also by several judgments of this Court. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the writ petition may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned Detention Order dated 23.01.2026, the Impugned Approval Order dated 02.02.2026 and the Confirmation Order dated 14.04.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Nancy Vs. State of Nagaland and Others in WP(Crl)/12/2023 , wherein, a coordinate bench of this Court has held that while making an order for detention on a person already in custody, there must be cogent materials before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may satisfy that a) the detenue is likely to be released from custody in near future and b) taking into account, the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities. 14. The Division Bench also held that the conclusion that the detenue maybe released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. The Division Bench found that the proposal which was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Kohima, to the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate did not in any manner state that there were reliable materials on the basis of which one could have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of the detenue to be released on bail and that further on being released he would probably indulge in activities that are prejudicial to public order. The detention order was accordingly, quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that that facts and circumstances in the instant case are squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment. 15. Ms. The detention order was accordingly, quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that that facts and circumstances in the instant case are squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment. 15. Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent has made her submissions basing on the contents of the affidavit-in- opposition and submits that the detaining authority was in the knowledge that the detenue is in judicial custody and further that the detenue is likely to move for bail as can be clearly seen from the schedule to the grounds of the detention order. 16. Learned Government Advocate also submits that the detention order along with all relevant documents was referred to the Advisory Board on 06.02.2026, which was within the stipulated time period of 3 (three) weeks under Section 10 of the NSA. Further, the Advisory Board had its sitting on 21.02.2026 and the Board submitted its report to the State Government on 09.03.2026, which was also within the stipulated time period of 7 (seven) weeks under Section 11(1) of the NSA. Thus, no provision of the NSA has been violated by the respondents. She has accordingly submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition deserve to be dismissed. 17. Learned Central Government Counsel, Mr. Z.N. Ngullie has submitted that all the timelines as mandated by the NSA has been fulfilled and the representation of the detenue has been rejected by the Central Government. He has also submitted that the instant writ petition needs to be dismissed. 18. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the official records produced by the learned Government Advocate. 19. A perusal of the official records reveals that the stand taken by the State respondents that the timelines mandated under the NSA were duly adhered to is supported by the materials available. While perusing the records it is found that the Advisory Board has prepared a chart tabulating the time line of the actions taken in the present case and the same is reproduced hereinbelow: - 20. While perusing the records it is found that the Advisory Board has prepared a chart tabulating the time line of the actions taken in the present case and the same is reproduced hereinbelow: - 20. In view of the above tabulation, we do not find substance in the allegation of the petitioner that there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions of the NSA. 21. Nevertheless, we have also perused the impugned detention order dated 23.01.2026 and find that there is not even a whisper in the detention order or the grounds & the schedule that the detenue is in custody or that there is cogent and reliable materials to show that there is likelihood of the detenue being released on bail. In the grounds of detention further, it is stated that “the subject Aloto Aye (32 years) is presently under the judicial custody at Central Jail, Dimapur, and is likely to move for bail. If he is not detained, he is likely to indulged in similar prejudicial activities unless an effective alternative measure is called for.” In the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Others, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 , the Supreme Court had observed that if the detention order is challenged, the detaining authority has to specify to the court that the authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenue was already in custody and that there was reliable material before the said authority on the basis of which it could have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of his release on bail and further, on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order for which the authority felt it necessary to prevent him from indulging in such activities and therefore, the detention order was passed. It was further observed that, in case either of the facts does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. 22. It was further observed that, in case either of the facts does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. 22. Further in the case of Dharmendra Sugan Chand Chelawat –Versus- Union of India, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 746 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an order of detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that: - i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenue was already in detention and ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenue is already in detention. 23. The Supreme Court further went on to clarify that the expression “compelling reasons” in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may satisfy that: - a) the detenue is likely to be released from custody in the near future and b) taking into account, the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detaine him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities. 24. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the detenue was arrested on 29.12.2025 in connection with the West P.S Case No.0122/25, and he was still in custody when the detention order was issued. Upon a bare perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that the detaining authority had mentioned that the petitioner was in judicial custody and that he was likely to move for bail. The petitioner, herein, has categorically submitted that the detenue had not moved any application for bail before the Trial Court. There is no indication anywhere in the detention order or the grounds of detention about the compelling reasons why the detaining authority believed that the detenue was likely to be released on bail. From a perusal of the requirements as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of Huidrom Singh (Supra), and in Dharmendra Sugan Chand Chelawat (Supra), and also the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Nancy Vs. From a perusal of the requirements as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of Huidrom Singh (Supra), and in Dharmendra Sugan Chand Chelawat (Supra), and also the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Nancy Vs. State of Nagaland , we find that the detaining authority has not shown any reliable or cogent materials on the basis of which one could have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of the detenue being released on bail. Even if the detaining authority had observed that the co-accused had been granted bail, the same would have also sufficed as a reliable material for the purpose of believing that there was a real possibility of the detenue to be released on bail, however, there is no mention at all of any reliable materials or basis as mandated by law. 25. When the impugned detention order dated 23.01.2026 and the grounds enclosed therein does not reflect the requirements as mandated by law, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent orders either approving or confirming the detention of the detenue cannot stand the scrutiny of law and are required to be set aside. Accordingly, the Impugned order dated 23.01.2026, the Approval order dated 02.02.2026 and the Confirmation order dated 14.02.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside. 26. The order of detention has been interfered with by this Court on technical grounds and therefore, this order shall not affect any other further proceedings, if initiated in accordance with the provisions of the NSA, 1980. 27. The Registry shall return the records to Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate. 28. Petition stands disposed.