Manipur High Court
Shri. Lalnunmawia Gangte vs Special Secretary (Home) on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
KABORAMB Digitally signed
by
AM KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2026.03.12
SINGH 20:37:55 +05'30'
REPORTABLE
Suppl. Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026
Shri. Lalnunmawia Gangte, aged about 26 years, S/o (L)
Rochhunga Gangte, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu,
Tamu District Mayanmar.
......Petitioner
Vs.
1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.
2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner
(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat
Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795002.
3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi -
110001.
4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of
Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri,
P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795002.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail
Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,
P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur -
795131.
......Respondents
Page 1 of 23
With
W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026
Shri. Lunkhothang Baite alias Lhunkhothang Baite, aged
about 46 years, S/o Jamlhun Baite, resident of Tamu
village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District Mayanmar.
......Petitioner
Vs.
1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.
2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner
(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat
Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795002.
3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi -
110001.
4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of
Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri,
P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795002.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail
Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,
P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur -
795131.
......Respondents
Page 2 of 23
With
W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026
Shri. Jamkholal Mate, aged about 45 years, S/o (L) Thongsei
Mate, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District
Mayanmar.
......Petitioner
Vs.
1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.
2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner
(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat
Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795002.
3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi -
110001.
4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of
Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri,
P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795002.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail
Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,
P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur -
795131.
......Respondents
Page 3 of 23
With
W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026
Shri. Janglenpao Baite, aged about 25 years, S/o Ngamtong
Baite, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District
Mayanmar.
......Petitioner
Vs.
1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur,
Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795002.
2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner
(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat
Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795002.
3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi -
110001.
4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of
Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri,
P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795002.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail
Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,
P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur -
795131.
......Respondents
Page 4 of 23
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For Petitioners :: Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate
For Respondents :: Mr. Th. Vashum, Deputy Government
Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2,4,5
& 6;
Mr. N. Nongdamba, Advocate for
respondent No. 3, led by Mr. Kh.
Samarjit, Senior Advocate and Deputy
Solicitor General of India (DSGI)
.
Date of Hearing :: 11.03.2026
Date of Judgment & Order :: 11.03.2026
COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
(M. Sundar, CJ)
[1] In the captioned four ‘Writ Petitions’ (‘WPs’ in plural and ‘WP’
in singular, for the sake of brevity and convenience), writ petitioners are
citizens of Myanmar and are therefore foreign nationals in Union of India.
Writ petitioners entered India along with several others {81 (eighty one)
persons in all} and they were arrested on 27.01.2023 at about 4:00 am by
police from Moreh Police station. A common FIR (First Information Report)
being FIR dated 27.01.2023 bearing FIR No. 4(1)2023, MRH-PS on the file
of Moreh Police Station in Tengnoupal District, Manipur, was lodged. In
and by this FIR, 81 (eighty one) persons in all {including 4 (four) writ
petitioners} were alleged to have violated Section 14 of ‘the Foreigners Act
1946 (31 of 1946)’ (hereinafter ‘said Act’ for the sake of convenience and
Page 5 of 23
clarity) for alleged illegal entry and stay in Indian territory. Writ petitioners
were produced before the ‘Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moreh, Manipur’
(hereinafter, ‘said JM’ for the sake of convenience) on 27.01.2023 i.e., on
the same day and the said JM remanded petitioners to judicial custody.
Thereafter, petitioners were granted default bail. Petitioners complied with
the bail conditions and release orders were also made. When things stood
thus, ‘R-1’ {Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur} made an
order dated 12.01.2026 bearing Reference No. H-802/11/2025-HD-HD
repatriating the 24 (twenty four) out of the aforesaid 81 (eighty one)
Myanmar Nationals with a direction to hand over the 24 (twenty four)
persons to Myanmar authorities at Tamu through the Immigration Officer,
Moreh on 04.02.2026. It is now learnt that R-1 made another order of
even date i.e., order dated 12.01.2026 bearing Reference No. H-
1701/282/2023-HD-HD repatriating 3 (three) more persons from and out
of the 81 (eighty one) Myanmar Nationals. In these circumstances, a
representation dated 24.02.2026 has been sent by 9 (nine) individuals and
the four addressees are R-2 {Commissioner (Home) Government of
Manipur}, R-4 (Director General of Police, Government of Manipur),
Superintendent of Police, Tengnoupal District, Manipur and R-5
(Superintendent of Police, Sajiwa Jail, Imphal, Manipur). A scanned
reproduction of this representation
Page 6 of 23
dated 24.02.2026 (received by R-2) on 26.02.2026 is as follows:
Page 7 of 23
Page 8 of 23
Page 9 of 23
[2] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for writ petitioners,
adverting to the afore-referred representation, submitted that in the
tabulation at the end of the representation, writ petitioner in captioned
Page 10 of 23
W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026 (Lalnunmawia Gangte) is Sl. No. 5, writ petitionerin captioned W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @
Lhunkhothang Baite) is Sl. No. 3, writ petitioner in captioned W.P. (Crl.)
No. 6 of 2026 (Jamkholal Mate) is Sl. No. 1 and writ petitioner in captioned
W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026 (Janglenpao Baite) is Sl. No. 2.
[3] Learned counsel submitted that 4 (four) writ petitioners are
similarly placed qua afore-referred 27 (twenty seven) individuals who have
been repatriated vide two separate orders (made by R-1) both dated
12.01.2026 about which there is allusion elsewhere supra in this order.
[4] Issue notice. [5] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned State counsel, accepts notice for R-
1, R-2, R-4, R-5 and R-6, Mr. Nongdamba Naorem, learned counsel,
accepts notice for R-3 and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned senior advocate and
Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appears on his behalf. To be
noted, ‘R-1’ is an abbreviation denoting ‘1st respondent’ and similar
abbreviations have been used in the instant order with regard to other
respondents also.
[6] Though in the admission board, owing to the limited
perimeter within which the matter has to perambulate and in the light of
the order this Court proposes to make, this Court with the consent of all
the aforesaid learned counsel as well as learned senior counsel/DSGI, took
up the main WPs and heard out the same.
Page 11 of 23
[7] There is no disputation or contestation between the parties
that writ petitioner in one of the captioned writ petitions, namely, W.P.
(Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang Baite) came to
this Court earlier with regard to this very issue vide W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of
2026 and the same was disposed of by this court vide an order dated
10.02.2026, which reads as follows:
‘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
Page 12 of 23
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
Page 13 of 23
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.
Page 14 of 23
[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}
Page 15 of 23
[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 andPage 16 of 23
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:
Page 17 of 23
Page 18 of 23
[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 aPage 19 of 23
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’
All learned counsel on both sides agree that a similar order
can be made.
[8] Before we do that, for the sake of clarity and specificity, we
deem it appropriate to write that in respect of W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026
(Lalnunmawia Gangte) the date of release order made by said JM is
10.05.2024 and with regard to the other three writ petitioners in W.P.
Page 20 of 23
(Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang baite), W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2026 (Jamkholal Mate) and W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026
(Janglenpao Baite), date of release order is 02.05.2023.
[9] As regards one of the captioned writ petitions, namely, W.P.
(Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang Baite -writ
petitioner) he is the writ petitioner in afore referred earlier W.P. (Crl.) No.
3 of 2026. Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for petitioners, submits
that when the earlier writ petition, W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 was moved,
he did not have adequate instructions regarding conditions of bail
particularly sureties and therefore he erroneously stated that sureties have
not been furnished but it now comes to light that sureties have been
furnished and it is after furnishing of sureties that the release order has
been made by learned said JM on 02.05.2023. Therefore, as regards one
of the captioned writ petitions, namely, W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026, we treat
the same as a review plea (with consent of all afore-referred counsel) by
exercising our inherent constitutional powers. To be noted, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the matter, the
manner in which writ petitioners are circumstanced as also the fair stand
of learned counsel for writ petitioners, we resort to treating W.P. (Crl.) No.
5 of 2026 as a review as a one oft matter making it clear that this will not
serve as a precedent in all and every case to follow. Therefore, the sequitur
is, instant order will govern W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 in place of order
dated 10.02.2026 made in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 which now stands
Page 21 of 23
reviewed and rercalled. In the light of the common/joint submission made
in unison by both sides that a similar order as in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026
(earlier order dated 10.02.2026) can be made, we proceed to make the
following order:
(a) we direct the Commissioner (Home) Government of
Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO
&. PS Heingang Imphal East District Manipur 795002 to
dispose of the afore-referred representation (said
representation) dated 24.02.2026 (scanned and
reproduced elsewhere supra in instant order), as
expeditiously as the official business of the officer would
permit but in any event within three weeks from today,
i.e., on or before 01.04.2026;
(b) we direct the afore-referred Commissioner (Home) (to be
noted, ‘Commissioner (Home)’ is representing ‘State’ and
has been described as ‘R-2’ in the captioned WPs) to
consider the said representation on its own merit and in
accordance with law particularly with reference to the
point that similarly placed persons have been
repatriated/deported by exercising powers under Section
11(1) of said Act;
(c) we direct R-2 to make a speaking order;
Page 22 of 23
(d) we make it clear that afore-referred exercise shall be done
by R-2 by considering the said representation on its own
merits and in accordance with law as already alluded to
supra;
(e) the speaking order made by R-2 in the aforesaid manner
shall be duly served on each of the writ petitioners under
due acknowledgment within one week from the date of
making of the order and in any event on or before
08.04.2026.
[10] Before concluding, this Court makes it clear that if writ
petitioners, any one of the writ petitioners or some of the writ petitioners
are either not satisfied or aggrieved by the speaking order/s to be made
by R-2 in the aforesaid manner, it is open to writ petitioner/s to assail the
same in a manner known to law and if such a scenario unfurls the
challenge will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law;
[11] Captioned WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Sushil/Sandeep P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court
website inter alia as the same is QR coded.
Page 23 of 23