Page No.# 1/25 GAHC020001592026 2026:GAU-NL:202-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/2/2026 SHRI BUNYI DOMEH S/O LATE RAPRI DOMEH, A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PFUTSERO ZHAVAME (ZHAMAI), PHEK, NAGALAND - 797107 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY (PITNDPS) THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO. 202 JEEVAN TARA BUILDING 2ND FLOOR PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI 11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : V. THEYO, KHRIEKETHONUO,NANCY LOTHA Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Page No.# 2/25 Advocates for the petitioner : Ms. Khriekethonuo Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1,3 &4 : Ms. Inaholi, Govt. Adv ORDER 08/04/2026 (Y. Longkumer, J) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus is preferred by the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu Shri. Rhupunyi Domeh, who has been detained in the Central Jail, Dimapur pursuant to an order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Political Branch, Home Department/ Respondent No. 3 in excise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act for short). Challenge is also made to the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland by which the State Government had confirmed the detention order dated 07.10.2025 and also extended the period of detention for another 3 (three) months w.e.f., 10.01.2026 to 09.04.2026. 2. It would be relevant herein to recount the events which occurred leading to the passing of the detention order dated 07.10.2025 and thereafter, the confirmation order dated 09.01.2026, as it appears from the records produced by the learned Government Advocate. Page No.# 3/25 3. On 20.06.2025, an FIR was received from ASI, Kekhwete of Chizami Police Station stating that Rhupunyi/ the detenue, who is the youth president of Zhavame village attempted to traffic contraband drugs numbering 100 soap cases of brown sugar. The consignment was carried by Thaiko Poumai, Standson and Tavein one A-Star vehicle. However, the contraband drugs were intercepted by four persons who pursued them in a white Bolero. In this connection, Rhupunyi Domeh/detenu was arrested and a case was registered against him being Chizami P.S. No. 0001/25 u/s 28/29 NDPS. The accused person/detenu was remanded to police custody for 72 hours and later forwarded to judicial custody on 23.06.2025. The co-accused could not be arrested and the police personnel are trying their best to locate their whereabouts. 4. During investigation it was ascertained that the accused/detenu had made a plan to snatch the consignment and engaged one underground cadre who has been identified as SS Col. Sekho Krome, to snatch the contraband. Accordingly, Sekho and 3 (three) Others using a white bolero waylaid Thaikho Poumai travelling in the A-Star vehicle and snatched away the 100 soap cases of brown sugar. Upon examination of Call Details Records, it was found that Rhypunyi Domeh/detenu was in constant touch with drug smugglers from Manipur and Assam. His bank transaction were also scrutinized and found that one Rajen, a drug supplier from Arunachal had transferred more than 7 (seven) lakhs into the account of Rhupunyi Domeh/ detenu during 2003 to 2024. The investigation further revealed that Rhupunyi/detenu was also an accused in another Nagaland Excise case No. NEC/K/ND/01/23 corresponding to Special Case No. 04/23 U/S 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Page No.# 4/25 5. A proposal for preventive detention of Rhupunyi Domeh who had been arrested as an accused in the Chizami P.S. Case No. 0001/25, under the provisions of the PITNDPS Act was submitted by the SDPO, Pfutsero on 30.06.2025. In the proposal it was mentioned that on 18.06.2025 at around 1:00 to 2:00 PM, an A-star vehicle carrying 3 (three) individuals travelling from Manipur was intercepted by a white bolero. The bolero contained four men, one of them armed with a pistol. The armed man forced the A-star vehicle to stop and demanded that the passengershand over all the soap cases approximately 100 (hundred) in number suspected to be heroin and then it was seized by them. Before leaving the armed group instructed the three persons to report to the Shipumaram region camp upon their return to Senapati. The passengers and the A-star vehicle then made their way to Zhavame village, where they approached the village youth president/detenu and they narrated the incident to the youth president and requested permission to use his phone to make a call. Upon making a call Chizami P.S. GD Entry No. 72/25 dated 20.06.2025 was made. It was ascertained that the place of occurrence was about 30 km away from Chizami P.S, near Zhavame village and Manipur boundary. Hence, in this connection a case was registered being Chizami P.S. Case No. 0001/25 U/S 28/29 NDPS. During further investigation it came to light that it was Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh himself who had ordered the 100 soap cases from Mr. Thaikho Poumai to hand over to one person named Rajen from Arunachal Pradesh for an amount of 20 lakhs which was to be paid after drugs quality check but instead the drugs were confiscated before the delivery could be made to him. In the concluding part of the proposal the SDPO, Pfutsero mentioned that the accused/Rupunyi Domeh was also Page No.# 5/25 involved in Nagaland Excise case No. NEC/K/ND/01/23 corresponding to Special Case No. 04/23 U/S 21(c) of the NDPS Act. It was also stated in the proposal that the accused was presently under judicial custody in the Chizami P.S. Case and the earlier Excise case was pending trial. The conclusion made in the proposal was that the accused person was about to receive and transport Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances to Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and that the activities of the propose detenue had posed a serious threat to the youth of Zhavame Village and the public of Nagaland through hisbusiness of trafficking of illegal narcotics substances in the State. 6. The proposals submitted by the SDPO, Pfutsero was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Phek, Nagaland to the Director General of Police by letter dated 17.07.2025 giving a gist of the statements of the proposed detenu and the statements of the informant. Mention was also made about the financial transaction in the bank account of the proposed detenu and also his call records. The grounds on which preventive detention was proposed were also outlined in the letter of the SDPO, Pfutsuro dated 30.06.2025. 7. The proposal was thereafter, placed before the Screening Board, PITNDPS, Nagaland for detention of the detenu. The Screening Board PITNDPS which has been constituted under the PITNDPS Act in its sitting on 17.07.2025, examined the proposal submitted in connection with the proposed detention of the detenu. The Screening Board which was headed by the Addl. Director General of Police (ADM) as its Chairman, after perusal of the proposal and the documents submitted by the SDPO Page No.# 6/25 Pfutsero., formed an opinion that sufficient materials were available for placing the proposed detenu, an accused in Chizami P.S. Case No. 0001/25, under preventive detention. The Screening Board accordingly, recommended to forward the proposal to the Special Secretary, Home department, Government of Nagaland, with a further recommendation to place the proposed detenu under preventive detention as provided U/S 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. 8. The proposal for preventive detention was forwarded to the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department on 17.07.2025 by the Addl. Director General of Police (ADM)/ Chairman Screening Board PITNDPS Act vide the Office letter of even date giving a summary of the activities of the proposed detenu. A list of documents were also enclosed in the proposal wherein the details regarding the adverse activities of the proposed detenu was also enclosed as well as his bank account details along with all statements of transactions. 9. On 13.07.2025, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Political Branch, Home Department wrote a letter to the Addl. Director General of Police (ADM) requesting the following information:- i) whether the co-accused in the case have been arrested so far and seizure of the consignments made? ii) what is the status of investigation in the case. In response to the said letter dated 13.07.2025, a reply dated 20.08.2025 was received from the Superintendent of Police, Phek, Nagaland. By the reply letter dated 20.08.2025, it was informed that the Page No.# 7/25 co-accused in the case were yet to be arrested. That the Phek police team had made joint efforts with Dimapur police and the CDR of the accused was also analysed. Since the co-accused is an NSCN-IM Cadre, a requisition letter to hand over the co-accused was made to the Chairman seized fire monitoring group through PHQ, Nagaland vide letter dated 01.08.2025 and response is awaited. It was also replied that the drug consignment which was allegedly 100 numbers of soap cases could not be seized as it was taken away by the co-accused. It was also informed that the investigation was still going on and efforts are being made to arrest the co-accused namelySS Lt. Col. Sekho Krome, who is a cadre of NSCN- IM. 10. On the basis of the proposal received from the Additional Director General of Police (ADM) & Chairman of the Screening Board PITNDPS, the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Political Branch, Home Department/Respondent No. 2 reached a satisfaction on examination of the proposal and the supporting documents to form the view that there were sufficient grounds for detention of the proposed detenu. The respondent No. 2 being the detaining authority thereafter, passed the impugned detention order dated 07.10.2025 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, directing that, the proposed detenu be detained and kept in the Central Jail, Dimapur for an initial period of 3 (three) months. 11. Subsequent to issuance of the detention order dated 07.10.2025, the detaining authority vide letter dated 07.10.2025forwarded the copies of the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other Page No.# 8/25 supporting documents to the Addl. Director General of Police (L&O), Nagaland to serve the same upon the detenu and to obtain a receipt from him certifying that the contents had been explained to him in a language understood by him in presence of at least 2 (two) witness. It was also directed to ensure that the detenu should receive 1 (one) set each of the detention order and its enclosures. A report u/s 3(2) of the PITNDPS was forwarded to the Central Government vide letter dated 07.10.2025. 12. The copies of the detention order, the grounds of detention and the supporting documents were served upon the detenu on 10.10.2025. The acknowledgment certificate clearly shows the signatures of the detenu and 2 (two) independent witnesses. The acknowledgment certificate also states that the detention order, and the grounds of detention were explained to the detenu in English as well as Nagamese in the presence of 2 (two) independent witnesses under Video Recording. By another letter which was also served upon the detenu on 10.10.2025, the detaining authority conveyed to the detenu that he had a right to submit representation against his detention to:-i) the Detaining Authority ii) the State Government iii) the Central Government and iv) the Advisory Board. He was also informed that he had a right to claim a personal hearing before the PITNDPS Advisory Board constituted under the PITNDPS Act. The Superintendent of Police, Phek, Nagaland submitted a report to the Addl. Director General of Police (L&O), Nagaland, Kohima by a letter dated 10.10.2025 that the detention order had been served upon the detenu at District Jail Phek. The Addl. Director General of Police (L&O) further forwarded the report of execution of the detention order upon the detenu along with the pen-drive containing the video recording of execution of Page No.# 9/25 the detention order to the detaining authority. 13. The matter of preventive detention was referred to the Advisory Board vide a reference dated 28.10.2025 in terms of Section9 of the PITNDPS Act. The advisory board had its sitting on 08.11.2025. The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board heard the detenu in person in Nagamese and the detenu confirmed that he was provided with the grounds of detention along with the enclosed papers and that he had made a representation to the state government with respect to his detention. The Advisory Board recorded its opinion in a Report submitted on 19.11.2025. 14. The Advisory Board amongst other factors considered the fact that, the detenu is the youth president of Zhavame village and hence, his proximity and influence over the youth of the village provided him with the means to potentially lure or manipulate the youth into substance abuse or trafficking and hence, if the detenu is set at large, he will pose a serious threat to the social fabric of the community. In its opinion, the Advisory Board recorded that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. 15. On the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board, recorded in its Report dated 19.11.2025, the state government in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 9(f) of the PITNDPS Act, had confirmed the detention order dated 07.10.2025. By the order of confirmation dated 09.01.2026, the state government further extended the period of detention for another 3 (three) months w.e.f., 10.01.2026 to 09.04.2026. Page No.# 10/25 16. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Khreikethonuo and also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 17. Ms. Khreikethonuo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detenu possesses only minimal literacy, limited to affixing his signature and writing his name and understanding a few basic English words. The detenu was handed over a bulky set of documents, the contents of which were neither read over nor explained to him in a manner in which he could understand. Consequently, he was unable to grasp the true meaning, substance and implications of the allegations contained in the documents furnished to him. 18. It is submitted that the preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act is governed by strict time lines and non-compliance with the prescribed time frames vitiates the detention as the scheme of the Act requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards. It is stated that the detention order dated 07.10.2025 was initially made for a period of 3 (three) months and the detenu was lodged in the Central Jail from 09.10.2025. The said initial period of 3 (three) months ought to have ended on 07.01.2026, however, the confirmation order extending the detention comes into effect only on 09.01.2026 thereby allowing the detention to continue beyond the initial 3 (three) months, leaving a gap of 2 (two) days after the expiry of the initial detention period and the 2 (two) days gap is not covered by any order. This un-explained extension of detention beyond the initial period of 3 (three) months reflects a procedural lapse and non-application of mind on the part of detention authority, rendering the continued detention Page No.# 11/25 unsustainable in law. 19. It is submitted that from the date of arrest of the detenu on 20.06.2025 till the time the detaining authority passed the detention order on 07.10.2025, the detenu was in judicial custody. After his arrest the detenu had not preferred any application seeking release on bail. The grounds of detention merely states that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. There is no mention of real possibility of the detenu being released on bail. There is no reference to any pending bail application or relevant material indicating imminent release. Hence, the mere assertion that the detenu maybe release on bail demonstrates non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Therefore, there was no compelling reason justifying such preventive detention. 20. It is further, submitted that the detenu submitted his representation on 03.11.2025 through the central jail authorities. However, the record reveals that the said representation was received only on 11.11.2025, and the same was signed by the Jailor of central jail, Dimapur only on 12.11.2025. Thus, there is an unexplained delay of 9 (nine) days in forwarding the representation. There is no explanation whatsoever by the jail authorities for such delay. Moreover, the representations submitted by the detenu to the Detaining authority, the State government and the Central government have all been rejected. 21. Learned counsel has also argued that in the grounds of detention it is the allegation that the detenu was attempting to traffic contraband drugs numbering about 100 soap cases of brown sugar. However, in the Page No.# 12/25 concluding paragraph of the grounds of detention the detaining authority has recorded that the detenu has engaged himself in possession and transportation of narcotics drugs. Learned counsel therefore submits that this contradiction by itself shows that there has been no application of mind by the detaining authority while issuing the detention order. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the PITNDPS Act confers extraordinary powers on the executive to detain a person without recourse to the ordinary law of the land and without trial. Such a law needs to be strictly construed and the power conferred by such law needs to be exercised with extreme care and caution. However, in the instant case, the detaining authority has been apathetic in adhering to the statutory provisions while curtailing the liberty of the petitioner under such stringent provision of law, and the same has vitiated the detention order. Learned counsel therefore prays that the Impugned Detention order dated 07.10.2025, Impugned Rejection order dated 14.11.2025, the Impugned Rejection order dated 17.11.2025, the Impugned Rejection order dated 30.12.2025 and the Confirmation order dated 09.01.2026 may be quashed and set aside. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the following authorities in support of her submission- (i) Judgment dated 08.08.2025 in WP(Crl)/7/2025, Ms. Esther Zhoh Vrs Union of India & Others and Ameena Begum VS The State of Telangana & Ors in SLP (Criminal) No. 8510/2023 reported in 2023INSC788. 24. Per Contra, the learned Government Advocate, Ms. Inaholi appearing Page No.# 13/25 on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 submits that the respondents have strictly followed the timelines as recommended by the PITNDPS Act. She has submitted that the records reveal that the detention order dated 07.10.2025 along with the grounds of detention and all other relevant documents were served to the detenu and acknowledged by him on 10.10.2025indicating that the documents have been explained to him in English and Nagamese. Learned Government Advocate submits that the detenu in WP(Crl)/7/2025 was from the State of Manipur, and she was an illiterate person, who could not understand English or Nagamese. In the instant case, the detenu is a Chakhesang Naga and is fully conversant with the Nagamese language. 25. It is further submitted that the detention order dated 07.10.2025 was served to the detenu on 10.10.2025. Therefore, 10.10.2025 is the actual date of detention of the detenu since the detenu was not under preventive detention but he was under judicial custody before 10.10.2025. Accordingly, 09.01.2026 will be the date of expiry of the 1st three months and as such there is no gap of 2 (two) days as alleged by the petitioner. The confirmation order was duly issued on 09.01.2026 extending the detention period of the detenu from 10.01.2026 till 09.04.2026. 26. Learned Government Advocate relying on the records submits that in compliance of Section 3(2) of the PITNDPS Act, the report of the detention was communicated to the central government on the same day of the detention order i.e., 07.10.2025. As per Section 3(3) of the Act, the communication of the detention order to the detenu was made on the next day of detention i.e., 10.10.2025. In compliance of Section 9(b) of Page No.# 14/25 the Act the reference before the Advisory Board was made on 28.10.2025. As per Section 9(c) of the Act, the Advisory Board submitted its report before the stipulated time frame of 11 (eleven) weeks i.e., on 19.11.2025. The representation of the detenu was also disposed of by the detaining authority on 14.11.2025; by the state government on 17.11.2025 and by the central government on 30.12.2025. The detention order, grounds of detention and other enclosed documents were explained to the detenu in English and Nagamese in the presence of 2 (two) independent witnesses under video recording which was duly acknowledged by the detenu by appending his signature. As such there has been no violation of any of the procedural provisions of the PITNDPS Act and the detention order does not call for any interference. 27. The learned Government Advocate has also submitted that the detaining authority was fully aware that the detenu was in judicial custody and the same has been reflected in the grounds of detention. After careful examination of the case, the sponsoring authority has proposed the detention of the detenu under the PITNDPS Act taking into account the fact that the detenu had attempted to traffic 100 soap cases of brown sugar and in an earlier case had also been arrested for possession of narcotic drugs. The investigation had revealed that the detenu was a habitual offender and was involved in inter-state trafficking of illicit drugs as revealed from his bank transactions and his call detail records. 28. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the records do not show that the detenu had submitted his representations on 03.11.2025. In fact, the record reveals that the representation was Page No.# 15/25 submitted only on 11.11.2025 and the same was forwarded and received by the Home Department, Government of Nagaland on 12.11.2025, and therefore, there was no delay in receiving the forwarded representation. Most importantly, learned Government Advocate submits that there is subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as the entire background and antecedents of the detenu has been considered in detailand the detaining authority was satisfied that the detention of the detenu was required in order to prevent him from involving in pre-judicial activities in the future and to prevent him from indulging in trafficking of psychotropic substances in his village. Learned government counsel has relied on the case of Union of India Versus Dimple Happy Dhakad reported in (2019) 20 SCC 609. Referring to the case of Dimple Happy Dhakad (supra), learned Government Advocate submits that the detention order clearly shows the application of mind of the detaining authority based on the materials available on record, the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of activities and the propensity of the detenu to indulge in such activities in future. She has submitted that when the preventive detention is aimed to prevent the detenu from committing illicit trafficking in narcotics drugs & psychotropic substances, the balance has to be struck between the liberty of individual and the needs of society. Based on the documents and the materials placed before the detaining authority and considering the role of the detenu in the Chizami P.S. Case as well as in the Nagaland Excise case, the detaining authority was satisfied as to the detenu’s continued propensity and his inclination to indulge in acts of trafficking to the detriment of the community and the public and that there was a need to prevent the detenu from further illicit activities. Page No.# 16/25 29. Learned Government Advocate has therefore prayed that this Court may dismiss the petition and that the detention order and confirmation order may be upheld. 30. 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 records produced by the learned Government Advocate. The decision which the learned counsel for the parties have referred to has also been duly perused. 31. For ready reference, the detention order dated 07.10.2025 along with the grounds on detention are reproduced herein below:- GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT : POLITICAL BRANCH ORDER Dated Kohima, the 07th October, 2025. NO. CON/PITNDPS/16/2025/223:: Whereas, the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland has senta proposal for detention of Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh(35 yrs) S/o: Lt. Rapri Domeh; V/o-Zhavame; Present/Add- Zhavame Village under PITNDPS Act, 1988 along with records under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. And whereas, on perusal of records as submitted by the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland, it appears that Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh (35 yrs) S/o: - Lt. Rapri Domeh; V/o-Zhavame; Present/Add-Zhavame Village was involved in the following case:- (i) Chizami PS Case no. 001/25 U/S 28/29 NDPS Act. And whereas, the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland has proposed to prevent Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh (35 yrs) S/o: Lt. Rapri Domeh; V/o-Zhavame; Present/Add- Zhavame Village, under PITNDPS Act, 1988 from continuing his harmful and prejudicial activity by engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic Page No.# 17/25 substances which poses a serious threat to people's health and welfare as his activities in such illegal traffic has a deleterious effect on the national economy. And whereas, I, Limasunep Jamir, Special Secretary (Home), Nagaland, specially empowered under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (as amended), am satisfied on careful examination of the proposal of the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland and other supporting documents, found sufficient grounds for detention of Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh (35 yrs) S/o: - Lt. Rapri Domek; V/o-Zhavame; Present/Add- Zhavame Village, and being satisfied that with a view of preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in NDPS, it is necessary to detain him. Now, therefore, the undersigned, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 do hereby issue this order directing Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh (35 yrs) S/o: - Lt. Rapri Domeh: V/o-Zhavame; Present/Add- Zhavame Village, be detained and kept in Central Jail, Dimapur for an initial period of three months. (LIMASUNEP JAMIR) IPS. Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland. GROUNDS OF DETENTION To, Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh (35 yrs) S/o: Lt. Rapri Domeh V/o-Zhavame Present/Add- Zhavame Village. Sub:Communication of Grounds of Detention under section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1980. Whereas, th e undersigned has made detention order against you under the provision of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 on the following grounds: 1. You, Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh are involved in the illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the instant case, you were attempting to traffic contraband drugs numbering about 100 soap cases of brown sugar. This has been corroborated by investigation through CDR analysis and bank transaction statements. 2. That, you are a habitual offender and has been previously arrested in connection with Nagaland Excise case no. NEC/K/ND/01/23, Spl case no. 04/23 dt. 21/01/23 u/s 21(c) NDPS Act 1985. 3. That, the case is at its initial stage of investigation wherein your co- Page No.# 18/25 accused are at large and there is high probability of your linkage spreading across different drug users in the state of Nagaland as well as inter-state which needs to be properly investigated in order to unearth the larger conspiracy. 4. That, the State of Nagaland/North Eastern States lies within the area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances as explained u/s 10(v)(c) of PITNDPS Act 1988. 5. That, you are presently under judicial custody. On the basis of material placed before me, I am satisfied that you are likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activity unless you are prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of preventive detention. Taking into account the nature of your antecedent activities, it is likely that after your release from custody you will indulgein similar prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain you in order to prevent you from engaging in such activities. 6. That, if not detained you are likely to be released on bail and you will continue to be a threat to the peace and security of the state of Nagaland/ North Eastern States and there is likelihood of you committing breach of peace and tranquillity therebyendangering the lives of many innocent people, peaceful existence of citizens and may warrant law and order problems. In light of the above facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that you, Mr. Rhupunyi Domeh through your above acts engaged yourself in possession and transportation of narcotic drugs, therefore, a fit case for detention under the PITNDPS, Act 1988. Enclosures: Police Report and all supporting documents to the case. (LIMASUNEP JAMIR) IPS Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland. 32. The PITNDPS Act has been enacted providing for preventive detention of persons engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in narcotics drugs & psychotropic substances as illicit trafficking poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and the activities of persons engaged in such illicit traffic have a negative impact on the national economy. The definition of illicit traffic has provided in Section 2 (e) of the PITNDPS Act which shows that it means engaging in production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-state, export inter-state, import into India, export from India or transhipping of narcotics drugs or psychotropic Page No.# 19/25 substances. 33. Preventive detention is resorted to for the purpose of preventing some future action. The object behind preventive detention is not to punish a person but to prevent him from doing something. Preventive detention U/S 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act enables the detaining authority to detaina person for a period up to one year from the date of detention in order to curb the person’s anticipated activities in illicit trafficking of contraband substances. The antecedents of the detenu are also a relevant factor. The detaining authority therefore, can take into consideration the nature of the antecedent activities of the proposed detenu in order toreach his satisfaction and arrive at a conclusion that it is likely that after his release from custody he will again indulge in activities of illicit trafficking and it is necessary to detain him from engaging in such activity. 34. In the instant case, the detenu was apprehended in connection with Chizami P.S. case No. 0001/25 U/S 28/29 of the NDPS Act. When the detention order was passed on 07.10.2025, the detenu was in judicial custody as an accused in connection with the Chizami P.S. Case No. 0001/25. Therefore, the detention order and the grounds of detention along with the supporting documents were served upon the detenu on 10.10.2025 when he was in judicial custody. 35. We have perused the contents of all the supporting materials along with the proposal for detention placed by the sponsoring authorities before the detaining authority and the same have already been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. The contents of the FIR and the connected Page No.# 20/25 police documents show that in the present case there was no seizure of contraband substance from the detenu. However, during investigation it was found that he had attempted to traffic 100 soap cases of brown sugar which was taken away by some other co-accused before it could reach him. It was also revealed during the investigation that the detenu intended to sell the 100 soap cases of brown sugar to one Mr. Rajen from Arunachal Pradesh and that this Rajen had deposited about 20 lakhs in the account of the detenu during 2023-2024. The Call Detail Records (CDR) of the Detenu also revealed that he was in constant touch with drug smugglers from Manipur and Assam. The proposal further showed that the detenu was involved in another case being Nagaland Excise Case No. NEC/K/ND/01/23 corresponding to Special Case No. 04/23 where he had been arrested for possession of contraband substances and the case was pending trial. 36. It is well settled 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 the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody. The detaining authority must be further satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released from custody and the nature of activities of the detenu indicates that, if he is released, he is likely to indulge in such pre-judicial activities and therefore, it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging such activities. 37. In the case of Kamarunnissa Versus Union of India reported in (1991) 1SCC 128, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even in the case Page No.# 21/25 of a person in custody a detention order can be passed, i) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody. ii) if he has reasons to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail and on being so released, he would in all probability indulge in pre-judicial activity and iii) if it is felt necessary to detain him to prevent him from doing so. If the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such a position, to question it before a higher court. 38. This same principle was reiterated in Union of India Verus Paul Manickam reported in (2003) 8SCC342, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that 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 pre-judicial activities, the detention order can be validly made. 39. It is pertinent that the detenu has been booked under Section 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act in the Chizami P.S. Case No. 0001/25. As such, the stringent provisions of bail U/S 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the case of the detenu. Therefore the stipulation in the grounds of detention that the detenu is likely to be released on bail has been inserted upon subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as there was possibility of Page No.# 22/25 the detenu being released on bail at any time. 40. In the instant case therefore the detaining authority has taken into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, which was brought out by the fact that he was arrested for possession of narcotics drugs in another Excise case where he was facing trial. The impugned detention order and the grounds of detention clearly record the awareness of the detaining authority that the detenu is in custody and that he is likely to be releasedon bail. 41. We are also of the view that the detention order and the grounds of detention along with the supporting documents have been duly served and explained to the detenu in Nagamese as well as in English in the presence of 2 (two) independent witnesses under video recording and being a Chakhesang Naga, it cannot be said that the detenu did not understand Nagamese. The facts in the case of Esther Zhoh in WP(Crl)/7/2025 therefore, can be differentiated from the instant case. 42. This Court has also examined the records thoroughly and finds that all the timelines as mandated by the PITNDPS Act have been followed minutely by the respondents. 43. In the Case of Ameena Begum (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down 10 (ten) criteria to test the legality of an order of preventive detention:- ”In the circumstances of a given case, a Constitutional Court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine Page No.# 23/25 whether: (i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied; (ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; (iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; (iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; (v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; (vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate; (vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale; (viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject- matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; (ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are Page No.# 24/25 not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and (x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to. Should the Court find the exercise of power to be bad and/or to be vitiated applying any of the tests noted above, rendering the detention order vulnerable, detention which undoubtedly visits the person detained with drastic consequences would call for being interdicted for righting the wrong.” 44. We are further of the view that the test laid down in the case of Ameena Begum (Supra), has been satisfied in the instant case as the detaining authority has applied its mind to all the relevant circumstances and the same is not based on extraneous materials. The detaining authority has also acted independently and the satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on the fact that there is a proximate link between the past conduct of the detenu and the instant case i.e., the Chizami P.S. Case No. 0001/25. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention is made are precise, pertinent and relevant with sufficient clarity and the timelines as provided under the law have been strictly adhered to. 45. In the result, we find that the impugned Detention order, and the impugned Confirmation order needs no interference, and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Page No.# 25/25 Comparing Assistant