Page No.# 1/16 GAHC020006482026 2026:GAU-NL:464-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/23/2026 Shri Henoka Ayemi, Xekiye Village, District – Niuland, Nagaland, represented by his elder brother Shri Bosheto Ayemi, [Detenu] presently lodged at Central Jail, Dimapur, Nagaland. ……………… Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. The State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. 2. The Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Home Department, Political Branch, Kohima, Nagaland. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland. 4. The Union of India, through the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Internal Security-II Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Second Floor, Hall/Room no. 23, Major Dhyan Chand Stadium, India Gate, New Delhi - 110001. ……………… . Respondents Page No.# 2/16 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocates : For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Surien, Advocate For the Respondent nos. 1-3 : Ms. Inaholi, Junior Government Advocate, Nagaland For the Respondent no. 4 : Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, CGC. Date on which judgment is reserved : Not applicable Date of Hearing : 10.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 10.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL] [ Manish Choudhury, J ] The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Page No.# 3/16 India is preferred on behalf of a detenu, Henoka Ayemi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the detenu’, for short], by the detenu’s elder brother, Shri Bosheto Ayemi, to challenge a Detention Order bearing no. CP/DMR/CB- 19/2025-26/4495 dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police & District Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland [the respondent no. 3] as the Detaining Authority in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section [3] of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 [‘the NSA’, for short] and all other subsequent and consequential Orders passed thereafter. By the Detention Order dated 19.01.2026, the detenu was detained and kept in the Central Jail, Dimapur. 2. Pursuant to the Detention Order, the Grounds of Detention were informed by the Detaining Authority to the detenu along with the relevant documents including a Schedule as Annexure-C delineating the facts and circumstances which purportedly led to issuance of the Detention Order on 19.01.2026. 3. As per the Detaining Authority, the Detention Order dated 19.01.2026 was issued with the object of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of public order. The State Government through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland issued an Order on 13.01.2026 under Section 3[2] of the NSA ordering that the detenu be detained and kept in the Central Jail, Dimapur for an initial period of three months w.e.f. the date of detention till 18.04.2026, with the observation that the period of detention would be reviewed as required under the provisions of the Page No.# 4/16 NSA. 4. On being served with the Detention Order and the Grounds of Detention, Representations were submitted by the detenu before the Central Government and the State Government through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Dimapur on 03.02.2026. 5. By an Order dated 12.02.2026, the State Government through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland rejected the Representation of the detenu stating that there was no merit in the Representation. By a WT Message dated 23.02.2026, the Central Government conveyed that the Representation submitted by the detenu for revocation of the Detention Order dated 19.01.2026 could not be acceded to. 6. In the meantime, the matter of detention of the detenu stood referred to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the NSA. The Advisory Board forwarded its Report dated 19.03.2026 opining that there were sufficient causes for detention of the detenu under the NSA. On the basis of the Report of the Advisory Board, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland in exercise of power conferred by sub- section [1] of Section 12 of the NSA confirmed the Detention Order issued in respect of the detenu by a Confirmation Order dated 14.04.2026 and further ordered that the detenu shall be detained for another period of three months w.e.f. 19.04.2026 till 18.07.2026 within which period his detention would be reviewed as required under the provisions of the NSA. Page No.# 5/16 By a subsequent Extension Order dated 17.07.2026, the period of detention was further extended for another period of three months w.e.f. 19.07.2026 till 18.10.2026. 7. The genesis of the Detention Order is seen to be traceable to a First Information Report [FIR] lodged on 05.12.2025. The FIR was lodged before the Officer in-Charge, Dimapur East Police Station, Nagaland on 05.12.2025. As per the FIR, the informant, a Sub-Inspector [UBI] of Nagaland Police attached to Dimapur East Police Station received a verbal information from one person named Ahmed Abdullah from Burma camp when he was performing telephonic duty at the Police Station. It was informed by the said person that his cousin brother named Ali Mansur [hereinafter referred to as ‘the victim’, for easy reference] had been abducted by unknown persons on the previous day and the unknown persons were contacting the family of the victim from a mobile number demanding a ransom for his safe release. By Location Based Survey [LBS], the victim’s mobile number was traced and intimation was given to the superior officer. On being instructed, a team of Police personnel proceeded to the traced location at Singrajan area. During the operation carried out, a vehicle [Swift Dzire] parked alongside the road was intercepted and two persons-occupants suspected to be involved in the crime were apprehended. Two other occupants of the vehicle fled the scene. They were also apprehended after a brief chase. The victim was found inside the intercepted vehicle and he was accordingly rescued. The four apprehended accused persons were, thereafter, taken to Dimapur East Police Station, along with the victim. Page No.# 6/16 8. The names of the four apprehended accused persons, as per the FIR, were [i] Hotang Panmei; [ii] Ato Achumi; [iii] Henoka Ayemi [the detenu]; and [iv] Vinoka Yeptho. 9. The said FIR was registered as Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 226/2025 for the offences under Sections 140[3], 127[2], 61[2] and 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Section 7 of the Nagaland Security Regulation on 05.12.2025. The four apprehended accused persons were arrested and after medical examination, they were kept in Police custody for further investigation. Subsequently, they were remanded to judicial custody. 10. As per the Schedule [Annexure - C] which was served with the Grounds of Detention, the detenu was shown to be arrested for carrying out abduction for ransom for the NSCN [IM] outfit. It was mentioned that such covert illegal activities were of a great concern for the general public and it had caused fear and insecurity in the minds of people. It was said that the detenu was an active member of NSCN [IM] outfit and was arrested for abduction for ransom which act was in violation of the ceasefire ground rules. The victim was a businessman having his shop at New Market, Dimapur and the incident of abduction for ransom had aggravated fear and threat of extortion among the entire business community. Based on such materials, the Detaining Authority formed the opinion that the detenu had not only acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community but had Page No.# 7/16 also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 11. It has been contended on behalf of the detenu that at the time of passing the Detention Order, the detenu was already in custody in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 226/2025. The Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody at the Central Jail, Dimapur and during his such custody, he moved a bail application on 16.01.2026, which can be found out from the Schedule [Annexure - C], served with the Grounds of Detention. It was mentioned that on being aware of such facts, the Detaining Authority proceeded to observe that if the detenu was not detained he was likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities. But, there was no satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority that there was a real possibility of detenu’s release on bail. It is, thus, contended that when the Detaining Authority was aware that the detenu was in custody, the Detaining Authority could pass a Detention Order only in the event the Detaining Authority would reach a satisfaction that there was real possibility of release of the detenu on bail. 12. It is further submitted that the detenu was one of the four accused persons arrested in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 226/2025. The other three arrested accused persons were also detained under the NSA by Detention Orders, all dated 19.01.2026, by the respondent no. 3 as the Detaining Authority. It is submitted that the Detention Orders, the Grounds of Detention, and the Schedule annexed therein as Annexure-C served with the Grounds of Detention passed in Page No.# 8/16 respect of the said three accused persons, were similarly worded. Based on the said Detention Orders, the State Government, the Advisory Board and the Central Government had acted in the same manner as they had acted in the case of the detenu. Those Detention Orders, when challenged separately in three writ petitions, have been set aside by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. With the case of the detenu no different from the other three detenus, the impugned Detention Order and the subsequent and consequential Orders are not sustainable in law. 13. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has referred to the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. It is submitted that the detenu joined the NSCN [IM] outfit in the year 2018 and underwent training. In the said outfit, he rose in ranks to assume higher post in the outfit, which is an armed one. The detenu was arrested for carrying out abduction for ransom for the said outfit and such covert illegal activities are of great concern to the general public and threat to public security, and adversely affect the economic development of the State, and detrimental to the tranquility and maintenance of law and order in the State. It is submitted that though it was not mentioned expressly at the time of issuance the Grounds of Detention, it has been averred in the affidavit-in-opposition that there was possibility of the detenu of being released on bail. Therefore, the contention advanced in that connection on behalf of the detenu has no substance. All the procedure were duly followed. It is contended that the Confirmation Order dated 14.04.2026 was issued based on the Report of the Advisory Board, forwarded on Page No.# 9/16 09.03.2026, wherein the Advisory Board observed that ‘there is sufficient cause’ for detaining the detenu. 14. We have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 15. The other three accused persons who were arrested along with the detenu in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 226/2025 and who were also detained by Detention Orders dated 19.01.2026, preferred three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Detention Orders, dated 19.01.2026, and also, the subsequent and consequent Orders. Those writ petitions were registered and numbered as W.P.[Crl.] no. 12/2026, W.P.[Crl.] no. 13/2026 & W.P. [Crl.] no. 14/2026 respectively. After filing of affidavits by the State respondents defending action regarding issuance of the Detention Orders, those three writ petitions were heard on 24.06.2026, and were also disposed of by separate Orders, all dated 24.06.2026, by setting aside the three Detention Orders, dated 19.01.2026, passed in respect of those three detenus and co-accused of the present detenu in Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 226/2025. The subsequent and consequential Orders dated 30.01.2026 and 14.04.2026 were also set aside. 16. It has been urged on behalf of the detenu in the present writ petition that his case is similar to the case of those three detenus. Therefore, a look at the Orders dated 24.06.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.[Crl.] no. 12/2026, W.P.[Crl.] no. 13/2026 & W.P. Page No.# 10/16 [Crl.] no. 14/2026 is necessary, as it has relevance in the present writ petition. The findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench would be adverted to at a later part of this Order. 17. It has been settled that Article 22[3][b] of the Constitution of India which permits preventive detention is only an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 22[3][b] is therefore, not to be held in isolation but is to be read only as an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 is the most important of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a person including a citizen, by the Constitution of India. Liberty of citizens is the most precious right. It is also to be kept in mind that preventive detention is preventive not punitive. Therefore, an order of preventive detention in relation to Article 22[3][b] is to examined qua the precious right preserved by Article 21. 18. It is settled that if the Detaining Authority is aware of the fact that the detenu is in custody and the Detaining Authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities he must be detained to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, then a Detention Order can be validly made. 19. In Huidrom Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur and others, [2012] 7 SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering a series of decisions on the point has observed as under :- 6. Whether a person who is in jail can be detained under detention law has been Page No.# 11/16 a subject matter of consideration before this Court time and again. In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & another. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1196, this Court while considering the same issue has reconsidered its earlier judgments on the point in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 897; Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 1508; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR1986 SC 315; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 596, and came to the following conclusion: "21. The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for 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 detenu is already in detention; and [ii] there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. 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 be satisfied that [a] the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future, and [b] taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, 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." * * * * Page No.# 12/16 9. In view of the above, it can be held that there is no prohibition in law to pass the detention order in respect of a person who is already in custody in respect of criminal case. However, if the detention order is challenged the detaining authority has to satisfy the Court the following facts: [1] The authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was actually in custody. [2] There was reliable material before the said authority on the basis of which he could have reasons to believe that there was 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, detention order was necessary. In case either of these facts does not exist the detention order would stand vitiated. The present case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. [emphasis supplied in bold] 20. As regards the same principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Meera Rani vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and another, [1989] 4 SCC 418, has observed in the following manner :- Applying the above settled principle to the facts of the present case we have no doubt that the detention order, in the present case, must be quashed for this reason alone. The detention order read with its annexure indicates the detaining authority's awareness of the fact of detenu's jail custody at the time of the making of the detention order. However, there is no indication therein that the Page No.# 13/16 detaining authority considered it likely that the detenu could be released on bail. [……] We hold the detention order to be invalid for this reason alone and express no opinion on merits about the grounds of detention. 21. This Court finds it relevant to refer to the contents of the Grounds of Detention served upon the detenu on 19.01.2026 by the Detaining Authority. The Grounds of Detention are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- GROUND OF DETENTION Henoka Ayemi [39 yrs], SS. Leacy, NSCN- IM, S/O- Kivito, V/O-Xekiye, PS- Niuland, Dist.-Niuland, P/Add:-Railway Colony, Dimapur. Whereas, the under signed has made detention order against you under the provision of the National Security Act, 1980. Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 5 of the said act, the undersigned hereby informs you that the said detention order has been made against you on the following grounds: - a. Security of the State of Nagaland, and b. Maintenance of public order. The particulars which have a bearing on the above two matters are specified in the schedule attached. You are also informed that you have a right to make representation to the detaining authority, Central Government and State Government through the concerned jail authorities. You also have the right to claim a personal hearing before the Advisory Board Constituted by the State Government under the aforesaid Act. Page No.# 14/16 22. There is no reference in the Grounds of Detention to the effect that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody; that there was real possibility of his release on bail and on being released on bail, the detenu would indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order; and that the Detaining Authority felt it necessary to prevent him from indulging in such activities and the same had necessitated to pass the Detention Order. However, reference is found in Schedule [Annexure - C] where the Detaining Authority recorded that the detenu was in judicial custody; and if the detenu was not detained, he was likely to indulge in similarly prejudicial activities unless an effective measure was not taken. Observing so, the Detaining Authority proceeded to pass the Detention Order against the detenu. The Detaining Authority was conspicuously silent on the aspect whether there was a real possibility of release of the detenu’s on bail. It is settled that in case the Detaining Authority does not express that he has reason to belief that there is real possibility of the detenu being released on bail, the Detention Order would stand vitiated. 23. In Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima vs State Of Manipur & Ors, [2012] 2 SCC 176, it has been observed that the State has been granted the power to curb personal liberty, which is the most precious and prized right of a person guaranteed under the Constitution and the power to curb such rights are available under criminal laws as also under the laws of preventive detention. The State is required to exercise with caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether the acts Page No.# 15/16 attributed to the detenu 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 an order or preventive detention. 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. 24. In the case in hand, the detenu was found involved in one criminal case which was registered as Dimapur East Police Station Case no. 226/2025. 25. The Coordinate Bench has observed that the manner in which the three detenus were issued the Detention Orders, dated 19.01.2026, appeared to be mechanical and the same, in turn, had vitiated the subsequent approvals granted and the Confirmation Orders. The Coordinate Bench has further observed that the allegations against the detenus were for abduction and for it, the detenus could easily be prosecuted under the law. The Detaining Authority did not satisfy itself or consider the possibility that the detenus were likely to be released on bail and on that ground, the Detention Orders passed in respect of those three detenus, who are found to be similarly situated like the detenu in the case in hand, were found to be bad in law and were set aside. 26. We are in respectful agreement with the view recorded by the Coordinate Bench in the Orders, dated 24.06.2026, passed in W.P.[Crl.] no. 12/2026, W.P.[Crl.] no. 13/2026 & W.P.[Crl.] no. 14/2026. In absence Page No.# 16/16 of any indication that the Detaining Authority considered that there was real possibility that the detenu would be released on bail, the Detention Order dated 19.01.2026, passed in the case in hand, is found to be invalid on that ground itself. 27. In view of the above discussion and the vitiation of the Detention Order dated 19.01.2026 on the above ground, the Detention Order dated 19.01.2026 does not stand for survival. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. If the initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequent proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root. In such view of the matter, the Confirmation Order dated 14.04.2026 and the Extension Order dated 17.07.2026 are also set aside and quashed. 28. Resultantly, it is ordered that the detenu, Henoka Ayemi is to be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. The writ petition stands accordingly allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant