Manipur High Court
Mutum Manaocha Singh @ Khullakpa vs District Magistrate/Detaining … on 9 March, 2026
Author: A. Bimol Singh
Bench: A. Bimol Singh
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH REPORTABLE
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.03.10
02:01:51 +05'30'
Item No. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(CRL) No. 30 of 2025
Mutum Manaocha Singh @ Khullakpa, aged
about 41 years, S/o Late M. Tolpishak Singh,
resident of Tronglaobi Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. District Magistrate/Detaining Authority,
P.O. & P.s. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District,
Manipur - 795126.
2. The State of Manipur, represented by the
Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, South
Block, Imphal - 795001.
3. Union of India, represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department
of Home Internal Security North Block, New
Delhi - 110001.
4. Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail
Sajiwa, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795114.
... Respondents
P a g e 1 | 15
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner : Mr. M. Ibotombi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, Deputy
Government Advocate, led by Mr.
Y. Ashang, Senior Advocate for R-
1, R-2 & R-4.
: Mr. W. Darakishore, Senior Panel
Counsel for Central Government
for R-3
Date of hearing : 09.03.2026
Date of judgment & order: 09.03.2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] In captioned writ petition (WP), Mr. M. Ibotombi,
learned counsel for sole petitioner, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei,
learned Deputy Government Advocate on record for
‘respondents No. 1, 2 & 4’ (‘R-1, R-2 & R-4’ for the sake of
brevity and convenience) led by Mr. Y. Ashang, learned senior
advocate and Mr. W. Darakishore, learned senior Panel Counsel
for Central Government (PCCG) for ‘respondent No. 3’ (‘R-3’ for
the sake of brevity and convenience) are before this Court.
P a g e 2 | 15
[2] Main WP was heard out and this order is to be read
in continuation of and in conjunction with proceedings made by
this Court in listings on 15.10.2025 and 20.01.2026 which read
as follows:
Proceedings dated 15.10.2025 :
‘[1] Mr. S. Premchand, learned counsel for writ
petitioner is before this Court on the VC platform.
[2] Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that
a preventive detention order dated 12.07.2025 made
by 1st respondent (District Magistrate, Bishnupur) has
been assailed by the detenu.
[3] To be noted, the afore-referred preventive
detention order shall be referred to as ‘impugned
preventive detention order’ and ‘1 st respondent’ shall
be referred to as ‘detaining authority’ (both for the
sake of convenience and clarity).
[4] Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that
the detenu himself is the writ petitioner, detenu was
arrested on 24.06.2025, remanded to police custody
till 29.06.2025, thereafter remanded to judicial
custody and while the petitioner remained
incarcerated, the impugned preventive detention
order came to be passed.
[5] In his campaign against the impugned
preventive detention order, learned counsel pointed
out that the impugned preventive detention order has
been made while the detenu was incarcerated but it
does not record subjective satisfaction of imminent
possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail. It is also
submitted that no bail application is pending as theP a g e 3 | 15
bail application presented at the time of being
produced before the NIA Court on 29.06.2025 was not
pressed. In other words, after 29.06.2025, no bail
application has been filed and none is pending is
learned counsel’s submission.
[6] Prima facie case is made out.
[7] Issue notice to respondents.
[8] Mr. Sh. Yangya, learned State counsel, accepts
notice for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4. As regards
respondent No. 3, learned counsel for writ petitioner
is permitted to serve on the standing counsel for
Union of India.
[9] Mr. Sh. Yangya, learned State counsel who
accepted notice for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4, requests
for two weeks’ time to get instructions and revert to
this Court. Request acceded to.
List on 05.11.2025.’
Proceedings dated 20.01.2026 :
‘[1] Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for
petitioner, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Sr. counsel instructed
by Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State counsel for respondent
Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. Panel
Counsel for Central Government (PCCG) for respondent
No. 3 are before us in the physical Court.
[2] After some arguments, Mr. W. Niranjit, learned
State counsel and Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr.
PCCG, sought time to get instructions more particularly
with regard to a Notification dated 13.11.2023 bearing
Reference No. S.O. 4899(E). This notification is under
Section 3 of ‘the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,P a g e 4 | 15
1967 (37 of 1967)’ (‘UAPA’ for the sake of convenience)
subject to Section 4 of UAPA.
[3] Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to
record that respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit-in-
opposition but as regards respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4, Mr.
Y. Ashang, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. W.
Niranjit, learned State counsel, submitted that he would
argue the matter on the basis of file produced in the
Court without filing an affidavit-in-opposition. Therefore,
the main matter was taken up with the consent of all
counsel before us and afore-referred request by both
State counsel was made after some hearing.
[4] The file produced by learned State counsel, Mr.
W. Niranjit shall remain in the custody of Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court in a sealed envelope and the
sealed envelope will be placed before this Court in the
next listing which shall be day after tomorrow.
[5] List on 22.01.2026.' [3] The afore-referred proceedings are now to be read
as an integral part and parcel of instant order. This also means
that the abbreviations, short forms and short references used
in the earlier two proceedings shall continue to be used in this
order also.
[4] Notwithstanding very many grounds i.e. myriad
grounds in writ petition, learned counsel for writ petitioner, in
the hearing predicated his campaign against the impugned
P a g e 5 | 15
preventive detention order on two points and the same are asfollows:
(i) Subjective satisfaction arrived at by
Detaining Authority qua imminent
possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail
is flawed as there was no material before
the Detaining Authority for arriving at and
recording such subjective satisfaction;
(ii) Representation dated 02.08.2025
sent by writ petitioner to R-3 (Union of
India, represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of
Home Internal Security North Block, New
Delhi – 110001) was not disposed of
expeditiously. To put it differently, there is
delay in disposing of writ petitioner’s
representation dated 02.08.2025 made to
R-3 and this has vitiated the impugned
preventive detention order.
[5] As regards the first point, learned State counsel
for R-1, R-2 and R-4 submitted to the contrary and his
submission is as follows:
Adverting to grounds of detention
and more particularly paragraph Nos. 15
and 16 thereat, it was submitted that a bail
application moved by the detenu was
pending on the date impugned preventive
detention order, the same was before theP a g e 6 | 15
Detaining Authority and Detaining
Authority has noticed that in a case where
FIR was lodged against the detenu with
regard to similar offences under ‘Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act 1967′ [UA(P)A]
and ‘Arms Act, 1959‘ bail had been
granted.
[6] As regards the second point, learned senior PCCG
for R-3 submitted as follows:
There is no delay in disposal of writ petitioner’s
representation dated 02.08.2025 and processing details have
been adequately explained in sub-paragraphs No. I – IX of
paragraph No. 4 of affidavit-in-opposition of R-3 dated
24.10.2025 and the deponent is, Under Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India. Paragraph No. 4 of
affidavit-in-opposition of R-3 reads as follows:
‘4. That, with regard to para no. 8 & 9 of the
petition, it is submitted that a copy of representation
dated 02.08.2025 submitted by the Shri Mutum
Manaocha Singh @ Khullakpa, the detenu was duly
considered and not acceded to by the Central
Government. Accordingly, the detenu along with
authorities concerned were informed vide Wireless
Message dated 13.08.2025. The details of the
processing of the representation are as under:
I. A copy of the representation dated
02.08.2025 of the detenu was forwarded by the
P a g e 7 | 15
Additional Secretary (Home), Government of
Manipur vide letter dated 07.08.2025. A copy
of same was received vide email dated
07.08.2025 at 07:02 PM. It reached the section
concerned/dealing hand on 08.02.2025.
II. Thereafter, there was an intervening
period of two days on 09.08.2025 and
10.08.2025 being Saturday and Sunday.
III. The representation of the detenu was
examined at the section level on 11.08.2025
and thereafter put up to the Deputy Secretary
on 12.08.2025.
IV. The Deputy Secretary after examining the
representation forwarded the file to the Joint
Secretary on 12.08.2025.
V. The Joint Secretary after examining the
representation forwarded the file to the Union
Home Secretary on 12.08.2025.
VI. The Union Home Secretary having
carefully gone through the material on record,
including the order of detention, the grounds
for detention and the representation of the
detenu concluded that the detenu had failed to
bring forth any material cause or grounds in his
representation to justify the revocation of the
order by exercise of the powers of the Central
Government under Section 14 of the National
Security Act, 1980. He, therefore, rejected
representation and sent the file back to the
Joint Secretary on 12.08.2025.
VIII. The file reached the section concerned
through aforesaid level on 13.08.2025.
P a g e 8 | 15
Accordingly, the detenu and the authorities
concerned were informed vide Wireless
Message No. II/15023/30/2025-NSA dated
13.08.2025.
IX. It is further submitted that the
representation dated 02.08.2025 of the detenu
was dealt promptly and Central Government’s
decision on the representation was conveyed
with utmost promptitude. Hence, there was no
wilful or deliberate delay in disposal of the
representation on part of the answering
respondent.
A True copy of Wireless Message dated
13.08.2025 is enclosed herewith and
marked as Annexure-R/1.’
[7] This Court carefully considered the rival
submissions.
[8] As regards first point i.e., subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the Detaining Authority qua imminent possibility
of detenu being enlarged on bail, learned counsel for writ
petitioner pressed into service a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court made in Yumnam Ongbi Lembi Leima -vs- State of
Manipur & Ors. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 176. Learned
counsel relying on Yumnam Ongbi Lembi Leima submitted
that mere apprehension that detenu was likely to be released
on bail is not sufficient to justify the detention order. It was also
P a g e 9 | 15
argued by learned counsel for writ petitioner that the bail
petition filed by detenu (bail petition dated 30.06.2025 in Cril.
Misc. Bail Case No. No. 124 of 2025, reference No. FIR No.
06(06) 2025 KBL-PS on the file of Special Judge, NIA,
Bishnupur) was disposed of as not pressed on 01.09.2025.
[9] This Court finds that Yumnam Ongbi Lembi
Leima is distinguishable on facts and therefore it does not
come to the aid of writ petitioner. Yumnam Ongbi Lembi
Leima is distinguishable on facts as it is a case where the
learned counsel for detenu submitted that the detenu not
applied for bail at any stage and had gone on to submit that
there was no indication that he intends to do so. This is
captured in paragraph No. 10 of Yumnam Ongbi Lembi
Leima and the said Paragraph No. 10 as reported in (2012) 2
SCC 176 reads as follows:
’10. Mr. Parikh submitted that not only had the
appellant’s husband not applied for bail at any stage, nor
was there any indication that he intends to do so, which
could give to the supposition that in the future there was
every likelihood that he would be released on bail. Mr.
Parikh submitted that supposition could never take the
place of facts which were necessary to establish a case
which warranted the detention of a person without any
trial.’P a g e 10 | 15
[10] In the case on hand, the detenu has admittedlyfiled bail petition on 30.06.2025 and the same was pending on
the date on which impugned preventive detention order was
made by the Detaining Authority i.e. on 12.07.2025. Therefore,
the argument that there was no material before Detaining
Authority qua afore-referred subjective satisfaction is a non-
starter. The argument that the bail petition was disposed of as
not pressed is not argument as the bail petition was disposed
of only on 01.09.2025, much after the impugned preventive
detention order had been made by the Detaining Authority on
12.07.2025.
[11] As regards subjective satisfaction, Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ameena Begum -vs- State of Telangana
& Ors. reported in (2023) 9 SCC 587 had made it clear that
areas within which validity of subjective satisfaction can be
tested have been carved out and this Court in order dated
11.02.2026 made in W.P. (Crl) No. 34 of 2025 by respectfully
following Ameena Begum has made an adumbration of
carved out areas (adumbration of 6 areas i.e. a to f). This is
vide paragraph No. 7 of the order dated 11.02.2025 in W.P.(Crl)
No. 34 of 2025 (Mutum Ranjan Meitei @ Lamjingba -vs-
P a g e 11 | 15
District Magistrate, Thoubal District) and the same reads
as follows:
‘[7] This Court, carefully examined the rival
contentions. At the outset, it is to be noted that
the question of justiciability of subjective
satisfaction of a detaining authority in
preventive detention matters came up for
consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in
several cases and we respectfully refer to a
recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
being ‘Ameena Begum vs. State of
Telangana & Ors.‘ reported in (2023) 9 SCC
587. In Ameena Begum, after a survey of
various case laws on preventive detention
including case laws on preventive detentions
under NSA, Hon’ble Supreme Court made it
clear that areas within which validity of
subjective satisfaction can be tested have been
carved out and an adumbration of the carved
out areas is as follows:
(a) When the detaining authority has
not applied its mind at all;
(b) When there is dishonest exercise
of power by detaining authority;
(c) Exercise of power of detaining
authority for improper purpose;
(d) Detaining authority acting under
dictation of another body;
(e) When the subjective satisfaction
recorded by detaining authority isP a g e 12 | 15
based on application of wrong test or
misconception of a statute;
(f) When the detaining authority has
arrived at and recorded subjective
satisfaction without the same being
grounded on materials which are
rationally probative value.
(Underlining made by this Court for ease
of reference.)
To be noted, adumbration supra has
been set out by this Court by respectfully
following paragraph No. 16 of Ameena
Begum [paragraph No. 16 as in SCC report
being (2023) 9 SCC 587] wherein Hon’ble
Supreme Court relied on paragraph Nos. 8 & 9
of ‘Khudiram Das vs. State of West
Bengal‘ reported in (1975) 2 SCC 81 which
was rendered by a Hon’ble four Judges Bench.’
[12] In the case on hand, we find that it cannot be gain
said that there was no material of rationally probative value
before the Detaining Authority. The reason is, in paragraph No.
15 of grounds, Detaining Authority has noticed that detenu’s
bail petition dated 30.06.2025 is pending. The Detaining
Authority has also noticed that in a similar case qua the detenu
bail has been granted. Subjecting subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority to judicial review is not akin to an appeal
and therefore, we deem it appropriate to unhesitatingly write
P a g e 13 | 15
that it is not a case of complete absence of material much less
absence of any material of probative value. In any event,
argument of learned counsel for petitioner that lone bail petition
filed by the detune was disposed of as not pressed is a non-
starter as not pressed disposal of bail petition was on
01.09.2025 much after impugned preventive detention order
was made on 12.07.2025 as already alluded to supra. This
means that first point qua writ petitioner’s campaign against the
impugned detention order does not find favour with this Court.
[13] As regards second point, the representation sent
by the detenu to R-3 is dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure, A/7 –
Colly) and it has been disposed of by Central Government on
12.08.2025. As already alluded to supra, the details of
processing of detenu’s representation and various stages have
been explained vide paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-
opposition of R-3 which has been extracted and set out supra.
A careful perusal of the paragraph No. 4 makes it clear that no
sooner than the representation reached R-3, the same has been
examined i.e., on the next working day and it has been placed
before the Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary the day after
i.e. on 12.08.2025 and the detenu was informed vide wireless
message on 13.08.2025. Therefore, Court is unable to accept
P a g e 14 | 15
the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner that there
was delay on the part of R-3 in disposing of detenu’s
representation dated 02.08.2025. This means that the second
point also cuts no ice with this Court.
[14] Apropos, as both points on which the writ
petitioner’s counsel predicated his campaign against the
impugned preventive detention order cuts no ice with this
Court, captioned writ petition (WP) fails and the same is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Bipin
P a g e 15 | 15
