Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Manipur · body

2026 DAILYLAW 352 (MAN)

Thangkhogin Haokip v. State of Manipur and 5 Ors

W.P.(Crl.)/14/2026 · 2026-05-07

Ahanthem Bimol Singh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

REPORTABLE Suppl. Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P. (Crl.) No. 11 of 2026 Shri. Thang Ja Thang Haokip alias Thongjathang Haokip aged about 46 years, S/o Thangkhomang Haokip resident of Sawbwa (5), Tamu Sagaing Region Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, North Block, Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary (Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, Room No: 78, South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131. ……Respondents JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2026.05.08 17:27:08 +05'30' With W.P. (Crl.) No. 12 of 2026 Shri. Onthang Baite On Thang Baite, aged about 72 years, S/o (L) Holkhojam Baite, resident of Sawbwa (5), Tamu Sagaing Region Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, North Block, Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary (Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, Room No: 78, South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131. ……Respondents With W.P. (Crl.) No. 13 of 2026 Shri Thang Gou Len Baite alias Thanggoulen Baite aged about 26 years S/o Lunkhomang Baite resident of Sawbwa [5] Tamu, Sagaing, Region, Myanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, North Block, Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary (Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, Room No: 78, South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131. ……Respondents With W.P. (Crl.) No. 14 of 2026 Shri. Thangkhogin Haokip aged about 29 years, S/o Paokholet Haokip resident of Tamu Village PS, Tamu District Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, North Block, Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary (Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, Room No: 78, South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131. ……Respondents With W.P. (Crl.) No. 15 of 2026 Shri. Ginkhosat Touthang aged about 43 years, S/o Jamsei Touthang resident of Sawbwa (5), Tamu Sagaing Region Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, North Block, Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary (Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New Delhi – 110001. 3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, 2nd Floor, Room No: 78, South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131. ……Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH For Petitioners :: Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate along with Ms. Chan Kashung, advocate For Respondents :: Mr. Soraisham Chittaranjan, Additional Advocate General for Manipur along with Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,3,4,5 & 6; Mr. N. Nongdamba, Advocate for respondent No. 2, led by Mr. Kh. Samarjit, Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) . Date of Hearing :: 08.05.2026 Date of Judgment & Order :: 08.05.2026 COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (M. Sundar, CJ) [1] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners in all 5(five) captioned ‘Writ Petitions’ (‘WPs’ in plural and ‘WP’ in singular for the sake of brevity and convenience) is before this Court. [2] Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that the captioned 5 WPs are directly and squarely covered by a common judgement/order dated 11.03.2026 made in W.P.(Cril.) Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026. [3] Learned counsel for writ petitioners has placed before this Court a copy of the aforesaid common judgement/order dated 11.03.2026 in W.P.(Cril.) Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026 and reproduction of the same is as follows: ‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026 Shri. Lalnunmawia Gangte, aged about 26 years, S/o (L) Rochhunga Gangte, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110001. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795001. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131. ……Respondents With W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 Shri. Lunkhothang Baite alias Lhunkhothang Baite, aged about 46 years, S/o Jamlhun Baite, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110001. Page 8 of 29 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795001. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131. ……Respondents With W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026 Shri. Jamkholal Mate, aged about 45 years, S/o (L) Thongsei Mate, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. 1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110001. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795001. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131. ……Respondents With W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026 Shri. Janglenpao Baite, aged about 25 years, S/o Ngamtong Baite, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar. ……Petitioner Vs. Page 9 of 29 1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110001. 4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795001. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131. ……Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH For Petitioners :: Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate For Respondents :: Mr. Th. Vashum, Deputy Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2,4,5 & 6; Mr. N. Nongdamba, Advocate for respondent No. 3, led by Mr. Kh. Samarjit, Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Date of Hearing :: 11.03.2026 Date of Judgment & Order :: 11.03.2026 COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (M. Sundar, CJ) 11.03.2026 [1] In the captioned four ‘Writ Petitions’ (‘WPs’ in plural and ‘WP’ in singular, for the sake of brevity and convenience), writ petitioners are citizens of Myanmar and are therefore foreign nationals in Union of India. Writ petitioners entered India along with several others {81 (eighty one) persons in all} and they were arrested on 27.01.2023 at about 4:00 am by police from Moreh Police station. A common FIR (First Information Report) being FIR dated 27.01.2023 bearing FIR No. 4(1)2023, MRH-PS on the file of Moreh Police Station in Tengnoupal District, Manipur, was lodged. In and by this FIR, 81 (eighty one) persons in all {including 4 (four) writ petitioners} were alleged to have violated Section 14 of ‘the Foreigners Act 1946 (31 of 1946)’ (hereinafter ‘said Act’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) for alleged illegal entry and stay in Indian territory. Writ petitioners were produced before the ‘Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moreh, Manipur’ (hereinafter, ‘said JM’ for the sake of convenience) on 27.01.2023 i.e., on the same day and the said JM remanded petitioners to judicial custody. Thereafter, petitioners were granted default bail. Petitioners complied with the bail conditions and release orders were also made. When things stood thus, ‘R-1’ {Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur} made an order dated 12.01.2026 bearing Reference No. H-802/11/2025-HD-HD repatriating the 24 (twenty four) out of the aforesaid 81 (eighty one) Myanmar Nationals with a direction to hand over the 24 (twenty four) persons to Myanmar authorities at Tamu through the Immigration Officer, Moreh on 04.02.2026. It is now learnt that R-1 made another order of even date i.e., order dated 12.01.2026 bearing Reference No. H-1701/282/2023-HD-HD repatriating 3 (three) more persons from and out of the 81 (eighty one) Myanmar Nationals. In these circumstances, a representation dated 24.02.2026 has been sent by 9 (nine) individuals and the four addressees are R-2 {Commissioner (Home) Government of Manipur}, R-4 (Director General of Police, Government of Manipur), Superintendent of Police, Tengnoupal District, Manipur and R-5 (Superintendent of Police, Sajiwa Jail, Imphal, Manipur). A scanned reproduction of this representation dated 24.02.2026 (received by R-2) on 26.02.2026 is as follows: [2] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for writ petitioners, adverting to the afore-referred representation, submitted that in the tabulation at the end of the representation, writ petitioner in captioned W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026 (Lalnunmawia Gangte) is Sl. No. 5, writ petitioner in captioned W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang Baite) is Sl. No. 3, writ petitioner in captioned W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026 (Jamkholal Mate) is Sl. No. 1 and writ petitioner in captioned W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026 (Janglenpao Baite) is Sl. No. 2. [3] Learned counsel submitted that 4 (four) writ petitioners are similarly placed qua afore-referred 27 (twenty seven) individuals who have been repatriated vide two separate orders (made by R-1) both dated 12.01.2026 about which there is allusion elsewhere supra in this order. [4] Issue notice. [5] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned State counsel, accepts notice for R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5 and R-6, Mr. Nongdamba Naorem, learned counsel, accepts notice for R-3 and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned senior advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appears on his behalf. To be noted, ‘R-1’ is an abbreviation denoting ‘1st respondent’ and similar abbreviations have been used in the instant order with regard to other respondents also. [6] Though in the admission board, owing to the limited perimeter within which the matter has to perambulate and in the light of the order this Court proposes to make, this Court with the consent of all the aforesaid learned counsel as well as learned senior counsel/DSGI, took up the main WPs and heard out the same. [7] There is no disputation or contestation between the parties that writ petitioner in one of the captioned writ petitions, namely, W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang Baite) came to this Court earlier with regard to this very issue vide W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 and the same was disposed of by this court vide an order dated 10.02.2026, which reads as follows: ‘Sl. No. 1(Suppl) IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(Cril.)No.3 of 2026 Lunkho Thang Baite alias Lunkhothang Baite aged about 46 years S/O Zam Lhun Baite alias Jamlun resident of Tamu village, PS Tamu, Tamu District Myanmar. Petitioner Vs. 1 State of Manipur represented by Commissioner(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO & PS Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002. 2 Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001. 3. The Director General of Police, Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, PO & PS Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795002. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, PS Lamlong, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001. 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, PO & PS Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur-795131. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH (ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ) 10.02.2026. [1] Captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of brevity) has been filed inter alia with a Habeas Corpus prayer. [2] Factual matrix in a nutshell is that writ petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2023; that an FIR being FIR 04(01)2023 on the file of Moreh Police Station in Moreh Sub-Division, Tengnoupal District, Manipur was registered; that vide this FIR, it was alleged that writ petitioner has violated Section 14 of ‘the Foreigner Act 1946 (31 of 1946)’ (hereinafter ‘said Act’ for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) i.e., illegal entry and staying in Indian territory; that it is admitted case of writ petitioner that he is a citizen of Myanmar; post FIR, writ petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court i.e. ‘Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moreh’ (‘said Magistrate Court’ for the sake of convenience and clarity); that said Magistrate court, on the same day i.e., 27.01.2023 made a warrant for interim custody; that thereafter, writ petitioner appears to have sought bail (to be noted neither the bail petition nor the bail order have been placed before us); that a release order has been made by said Magistrate Court and this release order is dated 02.05.2023; that this release order has also been assailed by writ petitioner (in addition to Habeas Corpus plea) in the captioned WP; that the release order imposes conditions of two sureties to be furnished besides personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-; that post release order, admittedly writ petitioner has not been able to comply with the bail conditions of furnishing two sureties and therefore continues to remain incarcerated in the Foreign detention Centre situate in Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa; that thereafter the Special Secretary(Home), Government of Manipur made an order dated 12.01.2026 bearing reference No.H-1701/282/2023-HD-HD repatriating 3(three) individuals by exercising power under Section 11(1); that on the same day i.e.12.01.2026, the Special Secretary(Home) made another repatriation order bearing reference No.H-802/11/2025-HD-HD repatriating 24 other individuals; that thereafter writ petitioner and 8(eight) others (9 in all) have sent a representation dated 04.02.2026 to R1,R3 and R4 and also the Superintendent of Police Saijiwa Jail Imphal inter-alia seeking deportation/repatriation to Myanmar and some other requests such as return of personal mobile phone have also been made in this representation. [3] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that writ petitioner is languishing in the Detention Centre for more than 3(three) years now i.e., from 27.01.2023 and therefore, Habeas Corpus plea has been made. As regards the Habeas Corpus plea, it is made clear that writ petitioner continues to be in Detention Centre only owing to non-compliance with the condition in the bail order/release order i.e., condition to furnish sureties. This means that this not a case of illegal detention. Therefore, a Habeas Corpus plea will not lie. Be that as it may, if writ petitioner is aggrieved by conditions imposed for release vide the release order, it is always open to the writ petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the appropriate court inter alia seeking modification/deletion of the conditions for release. This right of the writ petitioner is preserved but the Habeas Corpus plea is rejected. [4] This takes this Court to the representation i.e., representation dated 04.02.2026 made by writ petitioner and 8 others (9 in all) about which there is allusion supra. This representation shall be referred to as ‘said representation’ for the sake of convenience. [5] At the outset, we notice that said representation is dated 04.02.2026, it has been received by the office of DGP (Director General of Police) P.H.Q, Manipur Imphal on same day i.e., 04.02.2026 and the captioned writ petition has been filed on 09.02.2026. However, considering the nature of the matter we are looking into said representation. [6] Adverting to said representation, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons i.e., 27(twenty seven) in all have been repatriated by two repatriation orders, both dated 12.01.2026 (details of which have been set out supra) but writ petitioner has not been given such benefit of repatriation and this according to learned counsel for writ petitioner is lack of parity. [7] Issue notice to respondents. [8] Mr. Vashum, learned State counsel accepts notice for R 1,3, 4 & 5. Mr. N. Nongdamba, learned counsel accepts notice for R2 and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India(DSGI) and senior counsel appears on behalf of Mr. N. Nongdamba,. [9] Though in the admission Board, with the consent of all the aforesaid learned counsel and senior counsel, main WP was taken up on the short point pertaining to said representation. [10] As regards said representation, Mr. Vashum, learned State counsel pointed out that said representation is dated 04.02.2026 and it has been received on the same day, there have been only two working days thereafter and at the highest barely 4(four) days thereafter as the captioned WP has been filed yesterday (09.02.2026). Learned State counsel submitted that the representation can be examined on merits by R1 {State of Manipur represented by Commissioner(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO & PS Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-794002} [11] As regards R2, learned DSGI and learned senior counsel very fairly submitted that in the light of the trajectory the matter has taken, there is no role for Respondent No.2 at this juncture. [12] To be noted, one of the prayers i.e., the second limb of the prayer vide (b) of the prayer paragraph writ petitioner has made a prayer to quash the 02.05.2022 release order. If the release order is quashed writ petitioner will remain incarcerated. We accept the fervent plea of learned counsel for writ petitioner that this may be treated as quashing the conditions in the release order i.e., the condition to produce sureties. We take this liberal view considering the nature of the matter but with a caveat that other matters will be dealt with on a case to case basis. [13] Before concluding, it is necessary to write that ‘R1’ is an abbreviation denoting ‘first respondent’ and similar abbreviations have been used with regard to other respondents also. Page 18 of 29 [14] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning set out thus far, the following order is made: (i) the Habeas Corpus plea is rejected as it is not a case of illegal detention; (ii) plea to quash the release order dated 02.05.2023 is not acceded to but the rights of writ petitioner to seek modification/deletion of the conditions for release in the appropriate court under appropriate provision of law is preserved. If such a course is adopted by writ petitioner, the court concerned shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order; (iii) other prayers pertaining to declaration that the detention is illegal, release on personal bond and direction to respondent to issue temporary stay permission are rejected. [15] As regards said representation i.e., representation dated 04.02.2026, a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: [16] To be noted, writ petitioner is serial No.8 in the tabulation part of said representation. R1 is directed to consider the aforesaid representation on its own merits and in accordance with law, particularly with reference to the point that similarly placed persons have been repatriated/deported and make a speaking order. We make it clear that this exercise shall be done by R1 by considering the said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law. A speaking order shall be made as expeditiously as possible but in any event within 6(six) weeks from today i.e., on or before 24.03.2026. [17] The speaking order thus made in the aforesaid manner shall be duly served on writ petitioner under due acknowledgement within one week from the date of making of the order and in any event, the outer limit will be 31.03.2026. It is made clear that if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid speaking order, all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner are preserved to assail the same in a manner known to law. [18] Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom PS I : Upload forthwith PS II : All concerned will remain bound by this order when uploaded in the official website of High Court which is QR coded. FR/NFR’ All learned counsel on both sides agree that a similar order can be made. [8] Before we do that, for the sake of clarity and specificity, we deem it appropriate to write that in respect of W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026 (Lalnunmawia Gangte) the date of release order made by said JM is 10.05.2024 and with regard to the other three writ petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang baite), W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026 (Jamkholal Mate) and W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026 (Janglenpao Baite), date of release order is 02.05.2023. [9] As regards one of the captioned writ petitions, namely, W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang Baite -writ petitioner) he is the writ petitioner in afore referred earlier W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026. Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for petitioners, submits that when the earlier writ petition, W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 was moved, he did not have adequate instructions regarding conditions of bail particularly sureties and therefore he erroneously stated that sureties have not been furnished but it now comes to light that sureties have been furnished and it is after furnishing of sureties that the release order has been made by learned said JM on 02.05.2023. Therefore, as regards one of the captioned writ petitions, namely, W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026, we treat the same as a review plea (with consent of all afore-referred counsel) by exercising our inherent constitutional powers. To be noted, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the matter, the manner in which writ petitioners are circumstanced as also the fair stand of learned counsel for writ petitioners, we resort to treating W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 as a review as a one oft matter making it clear that this will not serve as a precedent in all and every case to follow. Therefore, the sequitur is, instant order will govern W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 in place of order dated 10.02.2026 made in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 which now stands reviewed and rercalled. In the light of the common/joint submission made in unison by both sides that a similar order as in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 (earlier order dated 10.02.2026) can be made, we proceed to make the following order: (a) we direct the Commissioner (Home) Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO &. PS Heingang Imphal East District Manipur 795002 to dispose of the afore-referred representation (said representation) dated 24.02.2026 (scanned and reproduced elsewhere supra in instant order), as expeditiously as the official business of the officer would permit but in any event within three weeks from today, i.e., on or before 01.04.2026; (b) we direct the afore-referred Commissioner (Home) (to be noted, ‘Commissioner (Home)’ is representing ‘State’ and has been described as ‘R-2’ in the captioned WPs) to consider the said representation on its own merit and in accordance with law particularly with reference to the point that similarly placed persons have been repatriated/deported by exercising powers under Section 11(1) of said Act; (c) we direct R-2 to make a speaking order; (d) we make it clear that afore-referred exercise shall be done by R-2 by considering the said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law as already alluded to supra; (e) the speaking order made by R-2 in the aforesaid manner shall be duly served on each of the writ petitioners under due acknowledgment within one week from the date of making of the order and in any event on or before 08.04.2026. [10] Before concluding, this Court makes it clear that if writ petitioners, any one of the writ petitioners or some of the writ petitioners are either not satisfied or aggrieved by the speaking order/s to be made by R-2 in the aforesaid manner, it is open to writ petitioner/s to assail the same in a manner known to law and if such a scenario unfurls the challenge will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law; [11] Captioned WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs. [4] Issue notice to respondents. [5] Mr. Soraisham Chittaranjan, learned Addl. Advocate General for Manipur along with Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6, N. Nongdamba, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and senior advocate and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Mr. Kh. Samarjit appears on his behalf. [6] Considering the limited scope of the captioned WPs, all the afore- referred counsel on both sides agreed to have main WPs taken up and disposed of without affidavits-in-opposition. [7] Learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Soraisham Chittaranjan and learned DSGI, Mr. Kh. Samarjit very fairly submitted that an order akin to afore- referred judgment/order dated 11.03.2026 in WP(Cril.)Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026 can be made in the instant cases also. This makes the legal drill at hand qua disposal of captioned 5(five) WPs fairly simple. [8] Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that in the cases at hand, the 5 (five) writ petitioners along with 4(four) others (9 in all) have sent a common representation dated 24.02.2026. The copy of this representation placed before this Court brings to light that this ‘24.02.2026 common representation’ (‘said representation’ for the sake of convenience and brevity) has been received by respondent No.3 on 26.02.2026 itself and captioned WPs have been presented in this Court on 07.05.2026. Page 24 of 29 [9] A scanned reproduction of said representation dated 24.02.2026 is as follows: [10] In the light of the narrative thus far, we make a similar judgement/order i.e., a judgment/order akin to common order dated 11.03.2026 made in WP(Cril.) Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026 and give the following directions: (a) we direct the Commissioner (Home) Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO &. PS Heingang Imphal East District Manipur 795002 to dispose of the afore- referred representation (said representation) dated 24.02.2026 (scanned and reproduced elsewhere supra in instant order), as expeditiously as the official business of the officer would permit but in any event within four weeks from today, i.e., on or before 05.06.2026; (b) we direct the afore-referred Commissioner (Home) {to be noted, ‘Commissioner (Home)’ is representing ‘State’ and has been described as ‘R-3’ in the captioned WPs} to consider the said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law particularly with reference to the point raised by writ petitioners’ counsel, i.e., that similarly placed persons have been repatriated/deported by exercising powers under Section 11(1) of the Foreigners Act 1946 (31 of 1946); (c) we direct R-3 to make a speaking order qua disposal of said representation; (d) we make it clear that afore-referred exercise shall be done by R-3 by considering the said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law albeit with reference to point raised about which there is allusion supra in previous directive as already alluded to supra; (e) the speaking order made by R-3 in the aforesaid manner shall be duly served on each of the writ petitioners under due acknowledgment within one week from the date of making of the order and in any event on or before 12.06.2026. [11] Before concluding, this Court makes it clear that if writ petitioners, any one of the writ petitioners or some of the writ petitioners are either not satisfied or aggrieved by the speaking order/s to be made by R-3 in the aforesaid manner, it is open to writ petitioner/s to assail the same in a manner known to law and if such a scenario unfurls such challenge will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law; [12] Captioned WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner inter-alia with afore-referred directions. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR John Kom P.S. I : Upload forthwith P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter alia as the same is QR coded.