Manipur High Court
Raj Pangeijam @ Naoboi vs Union Of India; & Ors on 3 October, 2025
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBA KABORAMBAM
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2025.10.03
SINGH 18:21:36 +05'30'
Sl. No. 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (Crl.) No. 17 of 2025
Raj Pangeijam @ Naoboi
Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India; & Ors.
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)
03.10.2025
[1] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Ms.
Pamchui, learned counsel for respondent No. 1; and Mr. Th. Vashum, learned
Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4; are before us.
[2] In the captioned matter, a detention order dated 07.07.2025 made
by R4 (the District Magistrate, Imphal West District) has been assailed.
R4 shall hereon and henceforth be referred to as 'detaining authority' for the
sake of convenience and clarity.
[3] This proceeding has to be read in conjunction with and in
continuation of earlier proceedings made by this Bench on 16.09.2025, which
reads as follows:
"Captioned 'writ petition' has been filed with a prayer
seeking issue a writ of Habeas corpus assailing a detention order
dated 07.07.2025(supported by grounds dated 09.07.2025).
Learned senior counsel, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar for the
petitioner in the hearing today raised the point that there is no
whisper in the detention order about imminent possibility of detenu
being enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the detenue remains
incarcerated (post-remand) in judicial custody from 17.06.2025.
As regards the ground case, learned State counsel
requests for time to ascertain if final report has been filed. Learned
State counsel also requests for time to produce records to
demonstrate the basis on which the detaining authority has arrived
at the conclusion that public order is in peril.
List on 25.09.2025."
[4] Today, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, adverting to earlier 16.09.2025 proceedings, submitted that he would
predicate his campaign against the impugned detention order of detaining
authority on one point and that one point is the detaining authority in the
detention order as well as the grounds of detention, has not recorded subjective
satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on
bail. In support of this submission, the following facts were brought to our notice.
(i) Detenu was arrested on 09.06.2025 pursuant to an FIR dated
09.06.2025 being FIR No. 211(6)2025 on the file of Lamphel
Police Station, Imphal West District ('said FIR' for the sake of
convenience). Alleged offences are under Sections
109(1)/132/190/113(2)(b) of BNS and Section 15(1-B) of
Arms Act.
(ii) Detenu was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate and
remanded to police custody on 10.06.2025.
(iii) On 17.06.2025, detenu was remanded to judicial custody.
(iv) Detenu filed first bail application, Cril. Misc. (Bail) Case No.
101 of 2025 before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same
was rejected on 17.06.2025. Second Bail application is Cril.
Misc. (Bail.) Case No. 103 of 2025 and the same was pending
as on the date of filing of the writ petition but was
subsequently not pressed on 12.08.2025.
[5] The above are on facts, on law, learned senior counsel relied on
the following:
(i) N. Meera Rani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and
another, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 418 for the proposition
that detaining authority should record subjective satisfaction
of imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail and
drew our attention to paragraph 23 therein and also submitted
that Meera Rani also arises under National Security Act,
1980. To be noted, Meera Rani adverts to Constitution Bench
judgment in Rameshwar Shaw V. District Magistrate,
Burdwan (Rameshwar Shaw is reported in AIR 1964 SC
334).
(ii) Paul Manickam and Another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342
for the proposition that when a preventive detention order is
made qua a detenu who is already incarcerated, it is
imperative to record that there is real possibility of the detenu
being released on bail.
(iii) An order of this Court dated 06.08.2025 in Shri Lisham
Premananda Singh @ Tony @ Brajamohon Vs. District
Magistrate and 3 others which follows Paul Manickam
was pressed into service.
[6] This Court also notice that Rameshwar Shaw has been adverted
to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ameena Begum reported in (2023) 9 SCC
587 albeit for different points.
[7] We also notice that paragraph 4.3 of the writ petition, reads as
follows:
"4.3. That, the detenu has filed a Cril. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 101 of 2025
before the Ld. Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West,
Manipur but the same was rejected on 17-06-2025. Subsequently, he filed
another Bail Application being Cril. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 103 of 2025
before the Ld. Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West,
Manipur and the said bail application is still pending for its disposal before
the said Hon'ble Court and the next date of hearing has been fixed on 08-
08-2025."
The response of the detaining authority (affidavit-in-opposition of
R4) is in paragraph 5 and the same reads as follows:
"5. That, with reference to Para Nos. 4.2 and 4.3 of the Writ Petition,
the deponent has no comment to offer as the same are matter of records."
Ground 'a' of the writ petition reads as follows:
"a) For that, the impugned detention order dated 07-07-2025
(Annexure-A/1) was passed by the respondent No. 4 against the detenu/
petitioner arbitrarily, mechanically and in a routine manner without proper
application of his judicious mind. In the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India i.e. the Union of India-Vs- Paul Manickam & Anr.
reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342 in para No. 14, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
clearly held that where the detention order in respect of a person
already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to
be released on bail would be vitiated."
The simple answer of R4 to ground 'a' in affidavit-in-opposition is
contained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition of R4 and the same reads
as follows:
"9. That, with reference to grounds (a) of the Writ petition, the deponent
has no comment to offer."
[8] Learned public prosecutor submitted that Shri Lisham
Premananda Singh @ Tony @ Brajamohon case authored by one of us
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh) is distinguishable on facts.
[9] Be that as it may, this Court wanted to know whether the case in
Shri Lisham Premananda Singh @ Tony @ Brajamohon, the detenu has
been released to pursuant to order of this Court or the matter has been carried
to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned State Counsel sought time to verity this
position and revert to this Court. Request acceded to.
List on 06.10.2025.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
