9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrested in connection with a case registered by Dimapur East PS in the year 2022, but noted that he was also not absconding in relation thereto after securing bail. The Investigating Officer, however, did not state anything about either of the detenus seeking bail in relation to Narcotics PS Case No. 005/24, after being arrested on 12.04.2024. The covering letters dated 14.05.2024 and 17.05.2024 addressed by the Additional Director General of Police to the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, reiterated the factum of both the detenus having been arrested on 12.04.2024 and their being in judicial custody on that date. He, however, went on to state that, if granted bail, there was a great chance of both of them continuing with illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. There was no basis whatsoever for this ipse dixit statement, as it is an admitted fact that neither Ashraf Hussain Choudhary nor Adaliu Chawang had applied for bail at the time the detention orders were passed against them. The material placed on record reflects that the detaining authority, viz., the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fly note the admitted facts in the cases on hand: Three individuals, viz., Nehkhoi Guite (the driver of the vehicle) and two ladies, Hoinu @ Vahboi and Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi, were apprehended by the police on the night of 05.04.2024 in Khuzama village area while travelling in a Mahindra TUV Vehicle. Upon search of the vehicle, 20 soap cases of Heroin were found concealed in the gear lever cover. The seized Heroin weighed 239 grams. Thereupon, Suo Motu FIR No. 005/2024 was registered on 06.04.2024 on the file of the Narcotics PS under Sections 22(b) and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Upon interrogation, Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi implicated Adaliu Chawang and stated that she had supplied Heroin earlier also to Adaliu Chawang and received money. Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were arrested at Dimapur on 12.04.2024 and were remanded to custody. 4. While so, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted proposals for the preventive detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang. These proposals were forwarded to the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, by the Additional Director General of Police ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raf Hussain Choudhary) issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland. 6. Notably, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang were granted statutory bail in Narcotics PS Case No. 005/2024 by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kohima, Nagaland, vide order dated 28.11.2024, as the prosecution failed to file a charge-sheet within the prescribed time. However, they still remain incarcerated owing to the impugned detention orders. 7. It would be apposite at this stage to take note of the statutory regime of the Act of 1988. Section 3(1) thereof empowers the authorized officers, either of the Central Government or of a State Government, to detain any person with a view to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 3(2) requires a State Government that passes such a detention order to forward a report of the same to the Central Government within ten days. Section 3(3) mandates communication of the grounds on which the detention order has been made to the detenu as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at he/she would indulge in prejudicial activity again, if not detained. 9. On similar lines, in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court affirmed that, where a detention order is passed against a person already in jail, there should be a real possibility of the release of that person on bail, that is, he must have moved a bail application which is pending. It was observed that if no bail application is pending it logically followed that there is no likelihood of the person in jail being released on bail. The Bench, however, pointed out that the exception to this Rule would be where a co-accused, whose case stood on the same footing, was granted bail. The Bench cautioned that details in this regard have to be recorded, otherwise the statement would be mere ipse dixit and cannot be relied upon. The law laid down in Rekha (supra) was reiterated and followed in Huidrom Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur and others (2012) 7 SCC 181. 10. Earlier, in Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and another (2003) 8 SCC 342, this Court observed that, where detention orders are passed against persons who are already in jail, the detaining authority should apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of making a representation against the Order should also be afforded to him. In order that the detenue should have that opportunity, it is not sufficient that he has been physically delivered the means of knowledge with which to make his representation. In order that the detenue should be in a position effectively to make his representation against the Order, he should have knowledge of the grounds of detention, which are in the nature of the charge against him setting out the kinds of prejudicial acts which the authorities attribute to him. Communication, in this context, must, therefore, mean imparting sufficient knowledge of all the grounds on which the Order of Detention is based. In this case the grounds are several, and are based on numerous speeches said to have been made by the appellant himself on different occasions and different dates. Naturally, therefore, any oral translation or explanation given by the police officer serving those on the detenue would not amount to communicating the grounds. Communication, in this context, must mean bringing home to the detenue effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the Order of Detention is based." The Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the prescribed time. Therefore, the edicts of this Court, referred to supra, would squarely apply as there was no material for the detaining authority to have formed an opinion that there was a likelihood of either Ashraf Hussain Choudhary or Adaliu Chawang being released on bail. 14. Further, it is an admitted fact that neither Ashraf Hussain Choudhary nor Adaliu Chawang knew English, the language in the orders of detention and the supporting documents. They specifically raised this issue in their individual representations dated 12.06.2024. The proposals for their detention also recorded that the only languages known to Adaliu Chawang were Nagamese, Manipuri and Hindi, while Ashraf Hussain Choudhary knew Nagamese, Bengali and Hindi. However, the authorities claimed that the contents of the orders and the grounds of detention were explained to them in Nagamese and that the same would suffice. This argument must necessarily fail in the light of the law enunciated by a Constitution Bench in Harikisan (supra). Such oral communication, even if true, did not amount to adequate communication, in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 15. We may also note that the proposals for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
