1. Heard Mr. P. Plus Lotha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent No.6 (Union of India).
2. In this proceeding, the petitioner has questioned the detention order dated 15-11-2013 under which one Awom Angkang, herein referred to as detenu, stood detained under the National Security Act, 1980, in short, the Act of 1980, and all other subsequent orders including the confirmation order dated 20-11-2013, whereby, the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of 1 year from the date of detention.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, who is the daughter of the detenu, had approached this Court seeking the quashment of the aforesaid order.
4. The facts which are narrated in the FIR dated 11-11-2013 and which ultimately gave rise to the present proceeding. In short, are that on 11-11-2013, 29th Assam Rifles along with the personnel from Dimapur Police Station conducted operation near Burma camp. Eros line and 6th Mile, Dimapur. Such operation was conducted on the basis of some specific information about the presence of some anti-=socials dealing with arms and ammunitions in a clandestine manner.
5. During such operation, Assam Rifles and Police apprehended one Shri Sanjay Sharma and on the basis of the information furnished by him, the search party recovered one 22 pistol and one 22 revolver from the shop of one Mintu Sharma, a resident of Khermahal, Dimapur. Thereafter, one Rajesh Gupta was also taken into the custody and on the basis of information provided by him more and more arms and ammunitions were recovered and seized and some other persons including the detenu herein were arrested. It has been alleged that the arrested persons, more particularly Sanjay Sharma, Rajesh Gupta and one Raj Gupta are the persons who deal with underground elements of NSCM (IM) and were part of organised crime syndicate.
6. In that connection, an FIR was lodged with the O/C Dimapur East Police Station on 11-11-2013. On the basis of the FIR, Dimapur East Police Station Case No.257/2013 under S. 25(1A)/(1B) of the Arms Act read with Ss. 7/8 NSR was registered.
7. For ready reference, the FIR is reproduced below:-
âFIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)
1. Based on specific information about presence of an arms dealer named Mr. Sanjay Sharma in general Rifles along with representatives of Dimapur Police (ASI A Sangla, WPC Premy and UBC Rengma, Lotha) launched an operation on 11 Nov., 2013 at 0500h. Mr. Sanjay Sharma was questioned at his Gun shop (Viswakarma Arms shop) in Eros line in which he worked. The Gun shop belongs to Mr. Mintu Sharma, r/o Khermahal, Dimapur.
2. The individual was taken to the shop and a search was conducted at around 06.00h wherein the following illegal/unauthorized weapons were recovered:-
(a) 22 pistol (Regd. No. REG 87279) Made in USA -01
(b) 22 Revolver (No Regd. No.) -01
3. Subsequently, Mr. Sanjay Sharma was taken back to his house at around 07000 hrs. and one individual by the name of Mr. Rajesh Gupta was found to be staying there who had come from Bareilly on the night of 10 Nov. 13 for collecting a consignment of weapons.
4. On subsequent questioning of Mr. Sanjay Sharma and Mr. Rajesh Gupta, the following was revealed:-
(a) Mr. Sanjay Sharma was in close nexus with NSCN (IM) and used to repair the weapons for the faction.
(b) Mr. Rajesh Gupta had come to collect a consignment of 6-7 weapons and was to carry it to Bareilly to an individual named Mr. Rajesh Gupta
(c) Mr. Sanjay Sharma confessed to having some weapons on his house. These weapons were admittedly procured from Bangladesh and Myanmar and subsequently were to be smuggled to UP and Bihar.
5. While the questioning of Mr. Sanjay Sharma was in progress, he received a call from Mr. John Longthasa, r/o Kari Anglong who wanted to hand over a weapon to him. Mr. Sanjay Sharma was asked to call Mr. John Longthasa to a petrol pump in general area Dhansiri to deliver the weapon. Troops of 29 Assam Rifles along with Police representatives (UBC Rengamo Lotha) launched an operation at around 1015 hrs. and apprehended Mr. John Longthasa. The following illegal arm/weapon was recovered from him:-
| (a) Pistol 9mm Barreta (Made in Italy) (Regn. NO. H35618Y) | -01 |
| (b) Magazine pistol 9mm Barreta | -02 |
| (c) Maruti Zen LX (Regn. No. As 12C 1610) | -01 |
| (a) Pistol 9 mm Barreta (Made in Italy) (Regn. No. H35980Y, H35914Y, H37057Y) | -03 |
| (b) Magazine Pistol Baretta | -03 |
| (c) Pistol LLAMA 7.65 mm (Regd. No. 365235, 349826) | -02 |
| (d) Magazine Pistol 7.65mm LLAMA | -02 |
| (e) Pistol Astra Unceta 7.65mm | -01 |
| (f) Magazine Pistol Astra Unceta 7.65mm | -01 |
8. Before reaching the ladys house, the source informed that the lady was proceeding towards Chumukedima in a car (Silver coloured Chervrolet UVA, Reg. No. AS01 AK 6276) to collect a consignment of weapons and large quantity of ammunition. The search party immediately located the vehicle and started tracking it. The vehicle reached a house behind Forest Deptt. Office in Chumukeima at about 1430 hrs. The NSCN (IM) lady cadre and males got down from the car and went into the house and after approx one hour they came out along with two more ladies. All five of them sat in the case and started moving towards Dimapur town when they were intercepted at 6th mile at about 1540 hrs. by the troops of 29 Assam Rifles along with representatives of police (THC Alenla and Zanbeno). On searching the individual one of the lady Ms. Mary of Vi. Kigwema was found hiding and AK series weapon in her âMekhla. Consequently, all the occupants of the vehicle were apprehended and the following recoveries made:-
| (a) 7.62mm AK series rifles | -01 |
| (b) Magazine 7.62mm AK series rifle | -01 |
| (c) 7.62mm AK live round | -01 |
| (d) Car Chervrolet UVA (Regn. No AS01 AK 8276) | -01 |
(a) Mr. Lanumar Ao
(b) Mr. Tali Ao
(c) Ms. Awon Angkang
(d) Ms. Lomi Bonmai
(e) Mrs. Mary
10. On questioning the apprehendees, it was revealed that the NSCN (IM) lady cadres name was Ms. Awon Angkang and was the wife of Somi Angkang as SS Maj of NSCN (IM), r/o Sashampheng, Ukhrul, Manipur.
11. Thereafter, the troops of 29 Assam Rifles along with the police representatives (THC Alenla) proceeded to search the house of Ms. Awon Angkang at Darogajan at about 1630 hrs. and the search operation was called off at 1730 hrs. on 11 Nov., 13.
12. During the series of operation in Dimaour on 11 Nov., 13 by 29 Assam Rifles the following individuals have been apprehended for possession of illegal weapons and warlike stores:-
(a) Name: Lanumar Ao
Age: 36 years
S/o: Takapa Ao
ViII: Merang Kong
PO: Tuli
PS: Tuli
Dist.: Mokokchung
State: Nagaland
Present Address:-
Vill: Sewak colony
PS: West PS
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
(b) Name: Tali Ao
Age: 42 years
S/o: Late Tamgam Ao
Vill: Longjang
PO: Impur
PS: Impur
Dist.: Mokokchung
State: Nagaland
Present Address:-
Vill: Nepali Basti
PS: West PS
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
(c) Name: Awon Angkang
Age: 40 years
W/o: Somi Angkang
Vill: Sashamphung
PS: Ukhrul
Dist.: Ukhrul
State: Manipur
Present Address:-
Vill: Darogajan
PS: East PS
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
(d) Name: Lomi Bonmai
Age: 40 years
W/o: Thaingwongbo
Vill: Jhalikie
PS: Jhalukie
Dist.: Peren
State: Nagaland
Present Address:-
Vill: Chumukedima
PS: Diphupur PS
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
(e) Name: Mary
Age: 70 years
W/o: Gonlen
Vill: Kigwema
(Zakhama)
PS: Kohima
Dist.: Kohima
State: Nagaland
Present Address:-
Vill: Chumukedima
PS: Diphupur PS
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
(f) Name: John Langthasa
Age: 25 years
S/o: Nishikanto
Group: NSCN (IM)
Vill: Manja
PS: Manja
Dist.: Karbi Anglong
State: Assam
Present Address:-
Vill: Tolouzoma
PS: Sub Urban
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
(g) Name: Rajesh Gupta
Age: 36 years
S/o: Sriniwas Gupta
Group: Arms Dealer
Vill: Patel Nagar
PS: Patel Nagar
Dist.: Bareilly
State: UP
Present Address:-
Vill: Burma Camp
PS: East PS
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
(h) Name: Sanjay Sharma
Age: 32 years
S/o: Suraj Sharma
Group: Arms Dealer
Vill: Maniacha
PS: Piri Bazar
Dist.: Lakhi Sarai
State: Bihar
Present Address:-
Vill: Burma Camp
PS: East PS
Dist.: Dimapur
State: Nagaland
13. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Raj Gupta are in nexus with the UG elements of NSCN (IM) and are a part of he organized crime syndicate dealing in smuggling of weapons to UP and Bihar.
14. As the individuals were found to be possession of illegal/unauthorized arms which is a threat to the internal security of the country, you are requested to lodge an FIR in this regard and book the individual under NSA, Ss. 120(b), 11, 122 and 124A of IPC, S. 125 of Arms Act and other admissible acts.â
8. On 15-11-2013, while the detenu was in custody, the District Magistrate, Dimapur served on her the detention order dated 15-11-2013 which he passed in purported exercise of power under S. 3(1(2) of the Act of 1980. It has been alleged that the detention order was passed in order to prevent detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of public order. On the same day, the ground of detention as well as schedule were also furnished to the detenu.
9. By the letter through which the ground of detention was communicated to the detenu, she was informed that she had the right to make representation to the appropriate authority seeking recalling of order of detention. In the meantme, vide order dated 26-11-2013, the detention was approved by Government of Nagaland. However, in exercise of her right, the detenu submitted a representation to the Advisory Board praying for recalling of the detention order.
10. But the concerned authority was pleased to reject the prayer seeking revocation of the detention order. The State Government thereafter confirmed the detention order and authorized the detention of the detenu for a period of 1 year from the date of detention.
11. Refuting the claims of the State Government in the documents aforesaid, the petitioner tries to project a picture different, altogether. According to the petitioner, detenu is a resident of Dimapur. On 11-11-2013, the detenu after dropping her children in school went to visit one Mrs. Lomi Bonmai, a resident of Chumukedima TOWN SINCE HER SONWAS NOT KEEPING WELL DURING SUCH TIME. She went to such place along with some of her friends and they proceeded to such place in a car.
12. Since Mrs. Lomi Bonmai was to come to Dimapur to purchase some medicine, the detenu requested her to accompany her since she was also proceeding to Dimapur. On way to Dimapur, they met one Mrs. Mary who was their old acquaintance and who was supposed to go to Dimapur for some purposes. The detenu, therefore, requested said Mrs. Mary to board the vehicle so that she could also go to Dimapur along with them.
13. On way to Dimapur, near 6th mile, the vehicle of the detenu was stopped by Assam Rifles personnel and they started to frisk the inmates of the vehicle. In the such course of such frisking, an AK-47 rifles was recovered from the possession of Mrs. Mary who boarded the vehicle of the detenu as stated above while they were proceeding to Dimapur. In course of time, the statements of the lady occupants of the vehicle were recorded and on the basis of information, furnished, the house of Mrs. Lomi Bonmai was searched and some arms and ammunitions were recovered from her house.
14. Though the house of the detenu was searched nothing was recovered from the possession of the detenu. Despite above and in spite of she being no way connected with any illegal activities, she was booked under the Act of 1980 merely for the reason that she is the wife of an NSCN (IM) cadre. In course of time, though she submitted a representation seeking revocation of the detention order, same was rejected most illegally.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner (petitioner is the daughter of the detenu) contends that the detention order and all other subsequent order49s) are unsustainable in law since they are made in total violation of law holding the field in question. In that connection, it has been stated that since the detaining authority had issued the detention order mechanically and without arriving at the subjective satisfaction made on objective assessment of the materials placed before it qua the necessity of the detenu being detained under the Act of 1980, same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. It has also been contended that the detaining authority placed enormous reliance in passing the detention order in question on the statement of the detenu which she made to the Investigation Officer during the course of the investigation and which the Investigating Officer recorded in accordance with the provision of S 161, Cr.P.C. However, such reliance is not permissible under the law in passing an order of detention under the ct of 1980.
17. It has again been stated that the detaining authority has opined that if the petitioner is not detained under NSA, there is every possibility of her being released on bail and in that event, she would resort to similar kind of illegal activities. However, nothing has been placed on record to show that the detaining authority had actually made an objective assessment of any material placed before him to come to a subjective satisfaction that unless the detenu is booked under the NSA, she would be released on bail and in that event, she would resort to similar kind of illegal activities.
18. Such an infirmity alone makes the detention order and all other subsequent orders illegal. On the above reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges that Court to seta side the order of detention and all other subsequent order.
19. In support of his various contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, through Secretary to Govt. in (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 225), (2) Huidrom Konugjao Singh v. State of Manipur, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2002, (3) Rashid Kapadia v. Medha Gadgil, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 745, and (4) Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur, reported in 2010 (9) SCC 618.
20. Though notice was served on the Union of India, it chose not to respond to the allegation made against it. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that the detention order was passed strictly in accordance with law and as such, there is no question of quashing the detention order or any other subsequent order as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
21. In that regard to the allegation that the detention order was passed mechanically, it has been submitted that the detention order was passed on the basis of the documents which were placed before the detaining authority and which have huge bearing on the allegations made against the mother of the petitioner and others. When one reads the detention order along with ground of detention and other documents, attached therewith, he would invariably find that the detenu was involved in activities enormously prejudicial to the security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of law and order.
22. On making exercise, as aforesaid, one would also find that detaining authority made objective assessment of the materials placed before it by the sponsoring authority and then come to subjective satisfaction that the detention of the mother of the petitioner is necessary so as not to allow her to interfere with he security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of law and order.
23. The large number of arms and ammunitions as well as huge amount of money recovered on the basis of information, furnished by the detenu and her associates together with the materials suggesting their close nexus with the underground extremist outfit are testimonies to the fact that in detaining the mother of the petitioner, the detaining authority did appropriate mental exercise to come to the subjective satisfaction that the detention of the mother of the petitioner is necessary under the NSA, 1980.
24. The relevant part of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below:-
â6. That the averment made in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition is a matter of records. The brief of the case is that on 11-11-2013, personnel of 29 AR launched an operation in general area Burma Camp basin on specific information about the presence of an army dealer namely Shri Sanjay Sharma. He was questioned and on the basis of his statement his shop and residence were raided, during which 2 (two) pistols were recovered and seized from his shop and 6(six) pistols were recovered and seized from his residence. One Rajesh Gupta who was staying at Sanjays place was also taken into custody. Meanwhile, an accomplice of Sanjay was apprehended with a pistol when he came to handover the seized pistol to Sanjay. On further questioning, Sanjay revealed that there is a lady cadre of NSCN (IM) at Darogajan who occasionally provide him with weapons and also have weapons in her possession. Following the information, the AR personnel proceeded towards her residence, however, before reaching her place they were informed that the lady was proceedings towards Chumukedima in a silver coloured Chevrolet UVA. The car was located and tracked and was halted at 6th Mile, Dimapur while they were returning from Chumukedima. On checking the car and the occupants, one AK-47 rifles was recovered from the possession of the lady namely Mrs. Mary, an accomplice of the detenu. They were travelling in the same car with three others and the occupants of the car were taken in the custody. Arrested persons were interrogated and two more house were raided in connection with this case the following arms, ammunition and explosives were recovered and seized four 9mm pistols with six magazines, two 7.65 mm pistols LLAMA with two magazines, one 7.65 mm Astra Unceta pistol with one magazine, one 22 pistol with one magazine, one 22 revolver, one 7.65mm AK series rifle with one magazine and one live round, one sten carbine, five explosive revealed a case of arms smuggling which has been going to in connivance with UG cadres and other like mended criminals outside the State also.
In course of investigation it was ascertained that the husband of the detenu is an active member of NSCN (IM). It was also ascertained that out of the seized arms and ammunition, six pistols were given by the detenue to co-accused-Sanjay Sharma for disposal and she received a payment of Rs. 15 lakhs on three installments. The pistols were allegedly given to her by one Mizo namely Tombo and the money she received were handed over to him. Besides that she denied having any knowledge about Tombop or how the arms were to be disposed. She also denied having any knowledge about the AK-47 seized from her co-accused Mary. However, Mary had stated that on 11-11-2013 morning, she was called by co-accused-Mrs. Lomi Bonmai and Mrs. Awom Angkang to Lomis house and asked her to transport the seized AK-47 to daily market, Purana Bazar, or which she would get a commission of Rs.5000/-.â
25. Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Government Advocate further submits that there were copious but definite information that if the detenu is not detained under the NSA there is possibility of detenu on being released on bail and in that event, the detenu would resort ot activities prejudicial to the security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of law and order. The relevant part of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below:-
21. That the averments made in paragraph 27 of the writ petitioner is denied by the answering respondent, All documents relating to the case of the detenue were placed before the detaining authority, the District Magistrate, Dimapur. After careful examination of the case, the detaining authority inferred that there is a likelihood of the detenue to be released on bail if not held under preventive detention. The detaining authority is competent enough to arrive at such a conclusion after studying the case records, hence, considering the prejudicial activities the detenu was involved in and the likelihood of the detenu to indulge in similar prejudicial activities if released on bail, she is being held under preventive detention in accordance with established procedure as warranted by law.â
26. In support of his contention , the learned State counsel has placed reliance to various decisions in the case of (1) Arambam Biren Singh v. State of Manipur, reported in 2010 (2) GLT 297 and 92) Soibam Joy alias Longol alias Leilangba v. District Magistrate and Ors., reported in 2011 (3) GLT 206.
27. I have heard learned counsel for the parties having regard to the pleaded case of the parties and the documents attached therewith. I have already found that the detention order and all other subsequent orders had been questioned on grounds more than one. One of the grounds was that the detaining authority had detained the mother of the petitioner without having subjective satisfaction over the facts that the detenu had real and actual possibility of releasing on bail and in the event, she would resort to similar activitie4s which are prejudicial to the security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of public order.
28. In our instant case, I have found that there is no quarrel over the fact that at the time when the detention order was passed, the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case No. 257/2013 under S. 25(1A)/(IB) of the Arms Act read with S. 7/8 NSR (sic). Therefore, before serving the detention order under the Act of 1980 on a person in custody, the detaining authority must fulfill the conditions, specified in the case of Huidrom Konugjao Singh (AIR 2012 SC 2002) (supra).
29. The relevant part is reproduced below:-
â8. This Court while deciding the case in A. Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 3053 : (2006 AIR SCW 4382), relied upon its earlier judgments in Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 3094 : (2002 AIR SCW 3563) ; Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of T.N. (2006) 6 SCC 64: (AIR 2006 SC 3606 : 2006 AIR SCW 3565); and Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. (2006) 5 SCC 676 : (s006 AIR SCW 4648), and held that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. His subjective satisfaction based on materials, normally should not be interfered with.
9. In view of the above, it can be held that there is no prohibition in law to pass the detention order in respect of a person who is already in custody in respect of criminal case. However, if the detention order is challenged the detaining authority has to satisfy the Court the following facts:
(1) The authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was actually in custody.
(2) There were reliable materials before the said authority on the basis of which he could have reasons to believe that there was real possibility of his release on bail and further on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order.
(3) In view of the above, the authority felt it necessary to prevent him from indulging in such activities and, therefore, detention order was necessary.
In case either of these facts does not exist the detention order would stand vitiated.
10. The present case requires to be examined in the light of aforesaid settled legal proposition. Learned counsel for the appellant-Shri L. Roshmani has submitted that the detenu had never moved the bail application after his arrest and he had not been involved in any criminal case earlier. Reliance had been placed upon two bail orders. They are related to different FIRs and not to he same case. The bail had been granted to the accused in those cases and none of them had been co-accused with the detenu in this case. Therefore, it was not permissible for the detaining authority to rely upon those bail orders and there was no materials before the detaining authority on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction could be arrived that the detenu in the instant case was likely to be released on bail and after being released on bail he would indulge in the activities detrimental to the society at large and would cause the problem of public order.â
30. Similar view has been rendered in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh (AIR 2012 SC 2002) (supra). For ready reference, the relevant part is reproduced below:-
â12. this could while dealing with the issue held:-
âA perusal of the above statement in para 4 of the grounds of detention shows that no details have been given about the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the Court concerned. Neither the date the alleged bail orders has been mentioned therein, nor the bail application number, nor whether the bail orders were passé din respect of the co-accused on the same case, nor whether the bail orders were passed in respect of other co-accused in cases on the same footing as the case of the accused. â¦..
In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent-authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passé din respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most Courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bailâ¦â¦
In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, where a co-accused whose case stands on he same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most Courts normally grant bail on this ground.â
(Emphasis added)
Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that is not the similar case, i.e. involving similar offence. It should be that the co-accused in the same offence is enlarged on bail and on the basis of which the detenu could be enlarged on bail.â
31. Coming back to our case, it is found that neither the detention order nor the ground of detention nor the schedule, attached therewith, makes any reference to show that there is possibility of the mother of the petitioner being release don bail, much less real possibility, and in that event the mother of the petitioner would resort to activities prejudicial to the security of the State of Nagaland or maintenance of law and order.
32. It may be noted here that only in the last paragraph of the schedule, aforesaid, the detaining authority had made a mere passing reference that there is possibility of accused being released on bail. The relevant part is reproduced below:-
âThat the subject is presently under a judicial custody but there is likelihood of they being release don bail and in that event of their release there is likelihood to indulge in similar prejudicial activities unless an effective alternative measure is called for.â
33. However, such a passing reference does not meet the standard, so stated in the cases, aforementioned. That being so, in my considered opinion, the impugned detention order and all other subsequent orders are liable to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.
34. Since the detention order and all other subsequent orders are liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground aforementioned, I am not inclined to probe the other allegations made against the detention order.
35. Consequently, the present proceeding is allowed.
36. Accordingly, the detention order dated 15-11-2013 and all other subsequent order(s) are quashed and set aside.
37. The detenu shall not be set it liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.