Page No.# 1/17 GAHC020004442026 2026:GAU-NL:445-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/20/2026 SMTI. ALO GHOKIHO REPRESENTING SHRI ZHIMOKA ZHIMOMI, S/O LATE TOZHEVI ZHIMOMI, R/O HOUSE NO. 758, PADAMPUKHURI, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE SPECIAL SECRETARY (HOME) GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 5:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL SECURITY NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 11000 Page No.# 2/17 Advocate for the Petitioner : H. ZHIMOMI, MEDO VERO,P SURIEN,HETOKA Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocate for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Surien Advocate for the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Longkumer, P.P., State : Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, CGSC Date on which judgment is reserved : 19.08.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes. JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) ( Y. Longkumer, J.) The instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for setting at liberty the Detenue Shri. Zhimoka Zhimomi presently detained at the Central Jail, Dimapur, Page No.# 3/17 Nagaland. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P. Surien, and also heard learned Government Advocate, Mr. M. Longkumer as well as Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGC for the Union of India. 3. In this application the petitioner has assailed the detention imposed upon the detenue by the impugned detention order dated 23.02.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung, Nagaland, the impugned Approval Order dated 06.03.2026 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department as well as the impugned Confirmation and extension Order dated 20.05.2026 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. 4. The facts as revealed from the records is that the Detenue was travelling in a Bolero from Cheniosho to Dimapur, and was taken into custody along with the other accused persons by the Assam Rifles at Mokokchung Village, inter alia on the ground that recovery of Arms and ammunitions were made from the Bolero vehicle and they were handed over to the Mokokchung Police. Accordingly, the Mokokchung police registered Mokokchung P.S-1 Case No. 001/26 u/s 25(1A) Arms Act, r/w Section 7/8 NSR. The Detenue was subsequently arrested in connection Page No.# 4/17 with the said case. 5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Mokokchung thereafter, vide letter dated 07.02.2026 addressed to the District Magistrate, Mokokchung, Nagaland submitted a proposal for detention of the detenue. Subsequently the District Magistrate, Mokokchung, Nagaland vide order dated 23.02.2026 detained the detenue under the National Security Act. Meanwhile, the State Government upon receipt of the approval letter for detention of the detenue, vide Impugned Order dated 06.03.2026 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland ordered the detention of the detenue U/S 3 (2) of the NSA, 1980 for a period of 3 (three) months till 22.05.2026. 6. The detenue in that context submitted his representations against the detention order praying for revocation of the same. However, the State Government so also the Central Government had rejected the prayer of the detenue for revocation of the detention order. 7. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, govt of Nagaland vide impugned order dated 20.05.2026, has confirmed the detention order in respect of the detenue and extended the detention for another 3 (three) months till 22.08.2026. Page No.# 5/17 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come before this Court. Learned counsel, Mr. P. Surien, appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Detention order dated 23.02.2026, the Impugned Approval order dated 06.03.2026 and the Impugned Confirmation order dated 20.05.2026 are not tenable in law as there is no application of mind on the part of the Respondent authorities while passing the said orders. 9. Learned counsel submits that the District Magistrate, Mokokchung, Nagaland has failed to apply his mind while passing the impugned detention order dated 23.02.2026 mechanically under Section 3 (2) of the NSA, 1980 without taking into consideration that there was no material to form an opinion that the detenue was involved in threatening the public, exhibiting arms or possessed incriminating documents and the joint interrogation also did not reveal anything to the effect that the detenue was having knowledge about the materials allegedly seized from the bolero vehicle. 10. Learned counsel also submits that the allegation regarding possession of arms and ammunition are subject to investigation under the provisions of Arms Act, which the regular court is empowered to look into, and therefore invoking the extraordinary measure of preventive detention Page No.# 6/17 is unwarranted and amounts to misuse of power. More so, in the event of allegation leveled against the detenue, the same constituted the violation of criminal law and does not affect the public order in order to justify preventive detention under the NSA. 11. There is no material to show that the detenue had indulged in any activity causing threat to maintenance of public order and there is no material to substantiate that the detenue is a threat to the State, and hence, the detention of the detenue under preventive detention is not justified. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the detaining authority has not mentioned in the impugned detention order dated 23.03.2026 that the detenue was already under judicial custody in connection with P.S -1 Mokokchung Case No. 0001/2026 U/S 25 (1A) Arms Act, R/w 7/8 of the NSR. Learned counsel therefore submits that the detention of the detenue under the NSA 1980 is wholly without subjective satisfaction and hence, the detention of the detenue under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 is not sustainable in law and therefore the detention order dated 23.02.2026, and the consequential orders are liable to be set aside. 13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Page No.# 7/17 decision of this Court in the case of Longlem Phom Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors, reported in 2017 (2) GLT 506 and also on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 128. He has also relied on the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.05.2026 in WP(Crl)/4/2026. By relying on the above decisions, learned counsel submits that when the order of the detaining authority did not record that he was aware that the detenue was already in custody and that there was a probability of the detenue being released on bail and that there was a further probability of the detenue indulging in acts prejudicial to the security of state and the nation, the detention order cannot stand the scrutiny of law and the continued detention of the detenue deserves interference. 14. Learned Government Advocate, Mr. M. Longkumer appearing for the State of Nagaland has referred to the contents of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, and he submitted that in the grounds of detention provided to the detenue vide letter dated 23.02.2026 and the schedule attached to the detention order, more particularly at paragraph (b) of the grounds for detention and paragraph (4) of the schedule, it is clearly stated that the subject is presently under Page No.# 8/17 judicial custody but that there is likelihood of him being released on bail and in the event of his release he is likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities unless an effective measure is called for. In the ground for detention, it is stated that if enlarged on bail the detenue is highly suspected to abscond. It is stated that the subject is an active member of NSCN-K (Ang Mai) Group, a banned organization by the Government of India, who was arrested with arms and ammunition. 15. The learned Government Advocate also referred to the affidavit filed by the detaining authority/Respondent No. 4. He submits that even in the affidavit of the Respondent No.4 it is specifically stated that on 19.01.2026 based on specific information received regarding movement of armed insurgent cadres of the NSCN-K (Ang Mai) faction from Cheniosho village towards Dimapur, MVCP was conducted by the 12th Assam Rifles and during the course of the MVCP, the suspected bolero was intercepted wherein, a plastic sack containing prohibited arms and ammunition and other incriminating articles was recovered consisting of 01(one) AK-56 Rifle, 01(one) Madsen Machine Gun, 01(one) Pistol (Beretta), 10(ten) rounds of 7.62 mm live ammunition, 16 (sixteen) rounds of .32 mm live ammunition, 26 (twenty-six) rounds of 9 mm live ammunition, 04(four) Mobile Phones, 04(four) Stamp/Seal of NSCN/GPRN, 01(one) AK Rifle Page No.# 9/17 Pouch, 01(one) Pistol Pouch, 02(two) Pen Drives, 02(two) Card Readers, 04(four) Writing Pads of NSCN-K (Ang Mai) and 01(one) CFGR Letter (Two Pages). In this connection, the detenue was also arrested being an occupant of the intercepted bolero vehicle. During the cross interrogation conducted at the Mokokchung P.S-1 in the presence of various agencies, the detenue stated that he had joined the NSCN-K (Ang Mai) in March, 2019. He further stated that the seized article wrapped in the plastic sack were handed over by 2 (two) NSCN-K (Ang Mai) Cadres at Chenloisho village, who had come from the Myanmar side stating that the plastic sack contained government property of NSCN-K (Ang Mai). 16. Learned Government Advocate, also submits that the Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit also stated that in the grounds for detention provided to the detenue vide letter dated 23.02.2026 and the schedule attached to the detention order, more particularly paragraph (b) of the ground for detention and paragraph (4) of the Schedule, it is clearly stated that the detenue is presently under judicial custody and, that, there is likelihood of he being released on bail and in the event of his release he is likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities, unless an effective alternative measure is called for. In the grounds for detention, it is also stated that if enlarged on bail, the accused is highly suspected to abscond. Learned Page No.# 10/17 Government Advocate therefore submits that the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the detenue was at that point of time under judicial custody in the Mokokchung PS-1 case, and that the grounds of detention also reflect the fact that the detaining authority was of the firm opinion that in the event the detenue was not detained he was likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities. 17. Learned Government Advocate further submits that it is the settled position of law that in the case of a person in custody, the detention order can be validly passed if the authority passing the order was aware of the fact that the detenue was already in custody and if he had a reason to believe that there is a possibility of release on bail and that on being released, the detenue would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities and further if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from doing so. 18. Learned CGSC, Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, appearing for Respondent No. 5, Union of India has also filed his affidavit. By relying on the affidavit of respondent 5, the learned CGSC submits that after due consideration of the representation of the detenue, his request for revocation of the detention order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Page No.# 11/17 Mokokchung was not agreed to by the Central Government Authority, and his representation was rejected and the detenue was also informed about the same vide wireless message dated 24.03.2026. 19. He submits that the undated representation of the detenue was forwarded by Senior Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Dimapur vide letter dated 18.03.2026. A copy of the same was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 18.03.2026 itself. The representation of the detenue was examined on 19.03.2026 and put up to the Consultant on 20.03.2026. The consultant forwarded the file with her comments to the Deputy Legal Advisor on 20.03.2026. The Deputy Legal Advisor after further examination forwarded the file to the Joint Secretary on 20.03.2026 itself. The Joint Secretary after examining the case in detail forwarded the file to the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 20.03.2026. The Special Secretary then forwarded the file to the Union Home Secretary on 21.03.2026. Thereafter, there was an intervening period of 01(one) day on 22.03.2026 being a Sunday. The Union Home Secretary after examining the materials on record concluded that the detenue had failed to show any material cause or grounds in his representation to justify the revocation of the order. Accordingly, the representation was rejected and the file was sent back to the Special Page No.# 12/17 Secretary on 23.03.2026 and accordingly, the wireless message dated 24.03.2026 was sent to the Central Jail, Dimapur. 20. The Superintendent Central Jail forwarded the copy of the said wireless message dated 24.03.2026 to the detenue on 25.03.2026 and acknowledgment was obtained from the detenue on the same day. Learned CGSC therefore submits that the representation submitted by the detenue to the Central Government was dealt with promptly and in accordance with the timelines provided by the National Security Act. 21. We have duly considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and we have also considered the authorities relied upon. We have also perused the official records produced by learned Government Advocate at the time of hearing. 22. A perusal of the official records reveals that the timelines mandated by the NSA, 1980 have been duly adhered to and the same is supported by the materials available on record. While perusing the records, this Court has also observed that the Advisory Board in its Report has tabulated the timelines of the actions taken in the present case. In view of the same, we find that there has been no violation of the mandatory provisions and timelines of the National Security Act in the present case. Page No.# 13/17 23. The only submission we now have to consider is whether the impugned detention order dated 23.02.2026 suffers from any infirmity inasmuch as whether it does not contain any disclosure by the detaining authority that he was aware that the petitioner was in custody and that there was a probability of the detenue being released on bail and that there was further probability of the detenue indulging in acts prejudicial to the security of the State and the nation. 24. We have perused the impugned detention order and the records and also the accompanying documents. The grounds for passing the order of detention reveals that the report of the sponsoring authority i.e., the Senior Superintendent of police Mokokchung had clearly stated that the detenue had been taken into custody on 19.01.2026 and that he had been detained in judicial custody since then. Thereafter, the detaining authority in the Schedule supplied to the detenue along with the detention order had recorded the fact that the detenue is under judicial custody but that there is a likelihood of him being released on bail and that in the event of his release he is likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities unless an affective alternative measure is called for. The detaining authority had also recorded in the grounds supplied, its satisfaction regarding the necessity of imposing preventive detention upon the detenue. Page No.# 14/17 25. A bare perusal of the Schedule annexed to the detention order shows that the detaining authority had conscious knowledge of the fact that the detenue was in judicial custody. However, there is nothing in the proposal made by the Senior Superintendent of Police nor in the Schedule to the detention order or in the detention order itself that the detenue had applied for bail before the concerned court. There is also nothing on record to show as to how the detaining authority came to a conclusion that there was a real possibility of the detenue being released on bail. 26. In the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181, the Apex Court held that in the event a detention order is challenged, the detaining authority has to satisfy the court of the following facts: - “(1) The authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was actually in custody. (2) There was a reliable material before the said authority on the basis of which he 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. (3) In view of the above, the authority felt it necessary to prevent him from indulging in such activities and therefore, a detention Page No.# 15/17 order was necessary." 27. In the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary to Government and Anr. reported in (2011) 5SCC 244, The Supreme Court further held: - "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 respect 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....... A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored...... 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. (emphasis added)." 28. From the above principles as laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident that there has to be reliable material before the detaining authority on the basis of which he could have reasons to believe that there was a real possibility of the detenue being released on bail. It Page No.# 16/17 cannot be a mere mechanical statement on the part of the detaining authority that there is a possibility of the detenue being released on bail without showing the reliable materials why the detaining authority has a reason to believe that there was a possibility of the detenue being released on bail. 29. In the present case, we find that there is no “reliable material” shown by the respondents for the detaining authority to have come to a conclusion that there was a real possibility of the detenue being released on bail. 30. In view of the above position of law, and in view of the facts and circumstances in the instant case, the impugned detention order dated 23.02.2026, the approval order dated 06.03.2026 and confirmation and extension order dated 20.05.2026 are set aside and quashed. 31. We are also of the view that since the order of detention has been interfered with by this Court on a technical ground, this order shall not affect any other further proceedings if initiated in accordance with the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 and nothing in this order shall influence any proceedings regarding an application for regular bail by the detenue in connection with Mokokchung PS-1 Case No. 001/26 u/s Page No.# 17/17 25(1A) Arms Act, r/w 7/8 NSR. 32. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed. The official records be returned to Mr. M. Longkumer, learned Government Advocate. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant RAZOUV ONUO KHOUBV E Digitally signed by RAZOUVONUO KHOUBVE Date: 2026.08.28 13:41:42 +05'30'