HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH versus STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 17-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 5 S.C.R. 1173 
HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2012) 
MAY 17, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980: 
A 
B 
s. 3(2) - Order of detention passed against a person c 
arrested for an offence punishable uls 302 /PC and s.25(1-
C) Arms Act - Held: In the instant case, resorting to the 
provisions of N. S. Act was not permissible, since the detenu 
had not moved any bail application and no other co-accused, 
if any, had been enlarged on bail - Factors to be taken into 
0 
consideration while passing an order of detention in respect 
. . of a person who is already in custody, enumerated in the 
judgment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 21 and 22. 
The appellant's son (detenu) was arrested on 
19.6.2011 in connection with an offence punishable 1.1/s 
E 
302 IPC and s. 25(1-C), Arms Act. The District Magistra,te 
passed a detention order u/s 3(2) of the National Security 
Act, 1980, on various grounds with an apprehension that 
as in similar cases, the accused involved therein had 
been enlarged on bail, the detenu in the instant case 
F 
would also be released on bail and he would indulge in 
activities prejudicial to public order. The detention order 
was confirmed on 16.8.2011. The writ petition filed by the 
father of the detenu having been dismissed by the High 
Court, he filed the instant appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The question of personal liberty of a 
person is sacrosanct and State Authority cannot be 
1173 
H 
1174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A permitted to take it away without following the procedure 
prescribed by law, otherwise it would be violative of the 
fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 22 of 
the Constitution. [para 4] [1178-E] 
8 
Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. & Anr., 1988 ( 3) Suppl. 
SCR 967 =AIR 1989 SC 364; Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima 
v. State of Manipur & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 176 - referred to. 
1.2 There is no prohibition in law to pass the 
detention order in respect of a person who is already in 
C custody in respect of criminal case. However, if the 
detention order is challenged, the detaining authority has 
to satisfy the court the 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 
D 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; and (3) keeping this 
in view, the authority felt it necessary to prevent him from 
indulging in such activities and, therefore, detention -ofder 
E was necessary. In case either of these facts does. not 
exist the detention order would stand vitiated. [para 9] 
[1180-G-H; 1181-A-C] 
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & Anr. v. Union of 
India & Ors., 1990 (1) SCR 303 =AIR 1990 SC 1196 
F Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, 1964 SCR 
921 = AIR 1964 SC 334; Masood Alam v. Union of India, 
1973 (3) SCR 268 =AIR 1973 SC 897; Dula/ Roy v. District 
Magistrate, Burdwan, 1975 (3) SCR 186 = AIR1975 SC 1508; 
Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, 1983 (3) SCR 939 
G = AIR 1983 SC 1130; Ramesh Yadav .v. District Magistrate, 
Etah, AIR1986 SC 315; Sura} Pal Sahu v. State of 
Maharashtra, 1986 (3) SCR 837 =AIR 1986 SC 2177; Binod 
Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, 1986 (3) SCR 906 = 
AIR 1986 SC 2090; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., 
H AIR 1988 SC 596; Amritlal & Ors. v. Union government 
HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH v. STATE OF 
1175 
MANIPUR & ORS. 
through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors., 2000 (4) Suppl. 
A 
SCR 450 = AIR 2000 SC 3675; N. Meera Rani v. Govt. of 
Tamil Nadu, 1989 (3) SCR 901 = AIR 1989 SC 2027; 
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India & Anr., 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 
457 = AIR 1991 SC 1640; and Union of India v. Paul 
Manickam and Anr., 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 618 =AIR 2003 
B 
SC 4622; A. Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2006 (5) 
Suppl. SCR 724 =AIR 2006 SC 3053; Rajesh Gulati v. Govt-
of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 3094; Ibrahim Nazeer v. State 
of T.N. & Ors. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 357 = (2006) 6 SCC 64; 
and Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. & Anr. 2006 (3) Suppl. c 
SCR 24 = (2006) 5 SCC 676 - referred to. 
1.3 It is not the similar case, i.e. involving similar 
offence, but it should be that the co-accused in the same 
offen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.