[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Lunkho Thang Baite Alias Lunkhothang ... vs State Of Manipur Represented By on 10 February, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.02.10
20:26:40 +05'30'
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)
s
(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.
[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
