Pranab Doley vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/34
GAHC010184462026
2026:GAU-AS:16313-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/40/2026
PRANAB DOLEY
S/O SRI LAKHI DOLEY, R/O VILLAGE- PANBARI MISING GAON, P.S.
BOKAKHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785621
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
3:THE ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
4:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621
5:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DISTRICT JAIL
Page No.# 2/34
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 78562
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., MR. S DEY,MR. D K
AGARWALA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY, DY. SGI R-1, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. S. Borthakur, senior counsel,
: Mr. D.K. Agarwala.
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S. Chakraborty, CGC,
: Mr. D. Mozumdar, Addl. Advocate General,
: Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. G.A.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 14.10.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : No.
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned senior counsel, assisted by D.K.
Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty,
Page No.# 3/34
learned CGC and Mr. D. Mozumder, learned senior counsel and Addl. Advocate
General for the State, assisted by Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt
Advocate.
2) Filing this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Sri Pranab Doley, has challenged
his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 vide
detention order no. eCF-821601/81 dated 30.07.2026, passed by the
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political
Department, Political (A) Department, by which the said authority had, amongst
others, recorded its satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner was
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as well as security of the State
and ordering him to be detained in the District Jail, Golaghat. Also under
challenge is the grounds of detention bearing memo no. eCF-821601/84 dated
30.07.2026, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Home and Political Department, Political (A) Department, which is stated
to be made in strict compliance of Section 8(1) of the National Security Act,
1980 and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also
prayed to declare his detention as illegal and for directing him to be released
and set at liberty.
3) The said detention order is extracted below:-
ORDER
“ Whereas, the Government of Assam has carefully considered the
materials placed before it, including the report of the Sr. Superintendent of Police,
Golaghat district, Assam, vide Memo No. GLT/DSB/2026/674-A dated 25/07/2026,
the connected case records, statements, intelligence inputs, reports and other
relevant materials concerning Sri Pranab Doley, aged about 40 years, son of Shri
Lokhi Doley, resident of Vill.-Panbari Mising Gaon, PO: Borjuri, P.S. Bokakhat,
District Golaghat, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the detenue);
Page No.# 4/34
And whereas, the Government of Assam is satisfied that the activities of
the detenue, as disclosed from the aforesaid materials, are prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order as well as security of the State;
And whereas, the Government has considered the nature, gravity,
frequency and potential consequences of the activities attributed to the detenue
and is satisfied that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenue
continuing to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
and security of the State, if he is not prevented from doing so;
And whereas, the Government has also considered whether the ordinary
criminal law is sufficient to prevent the detenue from continuing such activities
and, upon consideration of the materials placed before it, is satisfied that
preventive detention is necessary for preventing the detenue from acting in a
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the state;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) of
the National Security Act, 1980, the Government of Assam hereby directs that Sri
Pranab Doley be detained and kept in custody in the District Jail, Golaghat, with a
view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order and security of the State.
Since, the material placed before the Government reveals that the
detenue is already in the Judicial Custody and lodged in District Jail, Golaghat; the
Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat is directed herewith to execute the
detention order.
The detenue shall be informed of the grounds of detention within the
timeframe stipulated under section 8 of National Security Act and shall be afforded
earliest opportunity of making a representation against this order to the State
Government and/or the Advisory Board, NSA in accordance with Article 22(5) of
the Constitution of India and Section 8 and 10 of the National Security Act, 1980.
The Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat shall take necessary steps
for execution of this order in the manner provided for the execution of warrants
under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) / Code of Criminal
Procedure.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Assam.”
Digitally signed by:
Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam
Home & Political Department
Page No.# 5/34
4) The grounds of detention are extracted below:-
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
POLITICAL (A) DEPARTMENT
2nd Floor, I Block, Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati-6
Telefax No. 0361-2261421 :: e-Mail: [email protected]
No. eCF-821601/84 Dated Dispur, the 30th July, 2026
Communication of Grounds of detention of Sri Pranab Doley, S/o- Shri Lokhi Doley, Vill-
Panbari Mising Gaon, PS- Bokakhat, Dist- Golaghat, Assam under section 8(1) of the National
Security Act, 1980.
To,
Sri Pranab Doley,
S/o- Shri Lokhi Doley,
R/o- Vill- Panbari Mising Gaon,
PS- Bokakhat, Dist- Golaghat, Assam.
1. You were born in the year 1985. Your permanent address is Vill- Panbari Mising Gaon,
PS- Bokakhat, Dist- Golaghat, Assam. You are a Post Graduate in Social Work.
2. It appears from police records and intelligence inputs that there are serious criminal
charges against you involving public disorder, violence, criminal intimidation, and obstruction
of justice. The charges also include offences against women, public servants, hate
incitement, extortion, threats, communal violence.
3. The following cases were registered against you wherein incitement of hatred against
the state and violence amongst communities, obstruction of officials from discharging lawful
duties, extortion, threat to kill and assault and outraging of modesty was charged against
you:
Sl
No
Name of
PS
Case Reference with Section of
Law
Present Status
of the
Case
Related
Documents
1 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 82/2017 U/S
147/447/353/506 IPC.
CS No. 78; Dtd.
30/07/2017
Annexure - I
FIR Copy
2 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 86/2017, U/S
448/353/506/34 IPC
CS No. 57, Dtd.
31/05/2017
Annexure - II
FIR Copy
Page No.# 6/34
3 Gola-
ghat PS
Golaghat PS Case No. 457/2017, U/S
307/353/34 IPC
CS No. 112,
Dtd.
28/04/2018
Annexure -
III
FIR Copy
4 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 197/2018, U/S
143/353/188 IPC
CS No. 294,
Dtd.
31/12/2020
Annexure -
IV
FIR Copy
5 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 290/2018, U/S
109/188/353/34 IPC
CS No. 83, Dtd.
30/04/2020
Annexure - V
FIR Copy
6 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 162/2020, U/S
188/143/294(A)/353/506 IPC, R/w Sec. 51 of
DM Act.
CS No. 166,
Dtd.
31/08/2020
Annexure -
VI
FIR Copy
7 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 308/2020, U/S
141/142/143/188/341/353 IPC
CS No. 201,
Dtd.
30/09/2020
Annexure -
VII
FIR Copy
8 Derg-aon
PS
Dergaon PS Case No. 267/2020, U/S
141/142/143/109/353 IPC
Pending (High
Court stay
order)
Annexure -
VIII
FIR Copy
9 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 186/2023, U/S
109/353/332/34 IPC
CS No. 45, Dtd.
31/05/2024
Annexure -
IX
FIR Copy
10 Boka-
Bokakhat PS Case No. 06/2024, U/S
143/341/283/285 IPC
CS No. 58, Dtd.
29/07/2024
Annexure - X
FIR Copy
11 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 11/2024, U/S
353/294/34 IPC
CS No. 36, Dtd.
30/04/2024
Annexure -
XI
FIR Copy
12 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 90/2024, U/S
61(2)/308(3)/294(4)/74/351(2) BNS
CS No. 96, Dtd.
21/11/2024
Annexure -
XII
FIR Copy
13 Boka-
khat PS
Bokakhat PS Case No. 108/2026, U/S
61(2)/191(2)/191(3)/190/329(3)/324(2)/324(3)/
221/132/121(1)/121(2)/351(3)/74/326(g)/62
BNS
Pending for
Investigati-on.
Annexure -
XIII
FIR Copy
khat PS
4. It transpires from the afore-mentioned police cases registered against you that you
have repeatedly engaged in various criminal acts and acted in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of Public Order and attempts to commit obstruction and assault of public
servants, unlawful assembly, rioting, criminal trespass, wrongful restraint, criminal
intimidation, disobedience of lawful orders promulgated by public authorities, use of criminal
force, extortion, outraging the modesty of women, assault, attempts to commit mischief by
fire, and organised acts of violence against government officials and public authorities.
5. It has also been reported that you have been found to be involved in various activities
starting from road blockades to damage of public properties with an intent to create
lawlessness for your personal and vested interests.
Page No.# 7/34
6. Further it also appears from the records of the cases registered against you that you
have indulged in suspicious foreign transactions from doubtful sources in violation of the
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) which is detrimental and inimical to the security
of the state. You are in receipt of suspicious remittances from doubtful sources in your two
bank accounts as shown below:
State Bank of India Account of Pranab Doley, Account No. 40052269214, IFSC
Code:SBIN0009403
Forex Transaction-
SL No. Date Forex Amount INR Amount
1. 16-01-2025 FOREX TXN USD 393 @ 85.65
0111125TP0043420
Rs. 33,660
* Total Forex Amount Rs. 33,660
Domestic Transaction-
SL No. Date of Credit Highest Amount Credited Amount
1. 18/05/2021 Rs. 2,00,000 (Environics Trust)
2. 15/02/2023 Rs. 3,69,329 (Environics Trust)
* Total Domestic Amount= Rs. 5,69,329
State Bank of India Account of Pranab Doley. Account No. 00000030775096388. IFSC Code
SBIN0009403
Forex Transaction-
SL No. Date Forex Amount INR Amount
1. 22 October, 2018 FOREX TXN EUR 1751.1 @ 83.13
0111118TP0964314
Rs. 1,45,569
2. 8 June, 2022 FOREX TXN EUR 955 @ 81.57
0111122TP08191ELEONORA FA
Rs. 77,899
3. 1 August, 2022 FOREX TXN Consultancy Fee for Legal
Service 0007822TP000036
Rs. 1,79,180
4. July, 2023 FOREX TXN USD 246 @ 81.27
0111123TP110313
Rs. 19,992
* Total Forex Amount Rs. 4,22,640
7. As per police records, you have visited the following countries on the respective dates
as shown below but there is no details of air travel, food expenses, accommodation,
local transportation and other personal expenses and from which source you received
the money:
Page No.# 8/34
SL No. Date of Visit Countries Visited
1. 26/09/2017 Italy
2. 04/04/2019 Thailand
3. 10/04/2019 Spain
4. 23/03/2023 Thailand
5. 09/06/2024 Malaysia
6. 20/09/2024 Thailand
7. 22/11/2024 United Arab Emirates
8. 22/01/2025 Nepal
9. 03/05/2025 Norway
10. 22/06/2025 Philippine
11. 13/09/2025 Philippine
12. 25/10/2025 Thailand
13. 21/11/2025 Switzerland
14. 19/04/2026 Nepal
8. Your repeated involvement in various road blockades, strikes and inciting tension between
different communities that disrupt the prevailing law and order in the Golaghat district is
supported by the following intelligence reports that have been sent regularly from the O/O
the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Golaghat and also Morigaon district:
SL
No.
Extract of SITREP Attachment
1 On 24/04/2017 at 9:00 PM, Bokakhat Police arrested Shri Soneswar
Narah (40), Adviser of Jeepal, son of Shri Umakanta Narah, a resident of
Village Mori Dhansiri, P.S. Bokakhat, District Golaghat, and Shri Pranab
Doley (30), General Secretary of Jeepal, son of Shri Lakhi Doley, a
resident of Village Panbari Adarsha gaon, P.S. Bokakhat, District
Golaghat. They were arrested in connection with Bokakhat P.S. Case No.
82/2017 under Sections 147, 447, 353, and 506 of the IPC and were
forwarded to the SDJM Court, Bokakhat, on 25/04/2017.
Annexure - XIV
Extract of SITREP
dated 25/04/2017
2 On 08/05/2018, from 1130 hrs to 1230 hrs, around 50
members/supporters of TMPK, TMMK, MMK, and Jeepal, Bokakhat
Committee, jointly led by Shri Prasanta Loying (President, TMPK) and
Shri Pranab Doley (General Secretary, Jeepal), staged an Abasthan
Dharmaghat in front of the office of the SDPO, Bokakhat. They
demanded the immediate arrest of the SDPO, Bokakhat, and his
subordinate staff in connection with the alleged murder of one Momita
Doley Kalita at the premises of the SDPO Office, Bokakhat. They also
Annexure - XV
Extract of SITREP
dated 08/05/2018
Page No.# 9/34
demanded a Magistrate's inquiry into the alleged murder, the forensic
report of the case, and payment of Rs. 20 lakh as compensation to the
victim's family by the Government, among other demands. The
protesters submitted a memorandum addressed to the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of Assam through the SDO (Civil), Bokakhat, regarding their
demands. In this connection, Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 191/2018 under
Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC had already been registered against the
accused, Mintu Kr. Nath (Home Guard), and the case was taken up for
investigation.
3 On 17/10/2023, from 1130 hrs to 1500 hrs, approximately 300
members/supporters of KMSS, Jeepal Krishak Shramik Sangha, Raijor
Dal, and the AATSA Bokakhat Committee, led by Shri Akhil Gogoi
(MLA, Sivasagar LAC), Shri Soneswar Narah (Jeepal), Shri Pranab
Doley (Social Activist), and Shri Surajit Paik (President, AATSA
Bokakhat Committee) took out a protest rally from Bokakhat Lotabari to
the Office of the SDO (Civil), Bokakhat. The rally was organized in
protest against the issuance of notices vide No. BRQ-6/2023/21 dated
09/10/2023 by the SDO (Civil), Bokakhat, to the residents of Borbil
Mising Gaon, Bhuyan Gaon, Rangajan-Hatikhuli of No. 2 Sildubi, and
Seujipar Gaon regarding the proposed inclusion of these villages within
Kaziranga National Park by the civil administration. The protesters
demanded that: (1) the residents be allowed to continue living in their
present locations, as they are natives of Assam (2) if eviction became
necessary for the inclusion of the land within Kaziranga National Park,
the land occupied by the residents of No. 2 Sildubi Mising Gaon (Borbil
Gaon), Bhuyan Gaon, and Seujipar Gaon should first be converted into
Myadi land, after which its value should be determined in accordance
with the law, and each affected family should be provided with a
separate plot for rehabilitation and (3) in addition to compensation for
the land, adequate compensation should also be provided for standing
crops, trees, damaged houses, transportation to the new settlement, and
construction of new houses. Representatives of Raijor Dal, Jeepal
Krishak Shramik Sangha, and KMSS submitted separate memoranda
addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam through the SDO
(Civil), Bokakhat, in support of their demands. The AATSA Bokakhat
Committee also submitted a memorandum addressed to the SDO (Civil),
Bokakhat, stating that approximately 5,000 tea tribe families had been
residing in the area for a long period. The memorandum further stated
that, during the government census, more than 100 residents were absent
as they had gone to work in nearby tea gardens, resulting in their names
being omitted from the list. Accordingly, AATSA demanded that the
names of those left out be included in the list, that land pattas be issued
to the eligible residents, and that appropriate compensation and
rehabilitation be provided to the affected families.
Annexure - XVI
Extract of SITREP
dated 17/10/2023
4 On 05/01/2024 at about 1050 hrs, approximately 70 members/supporters
of the Bokakhat Motor Sramik Sanstha, led by Shri Ratul Das
(Secretary) and Shri Pranab Doley (Social Activist), staged a dharna in
Annexure - XVII
Extract of SITREP
dated 05/01/2024
Page No.# 10/34
front of the ASTC Office, Bokakhat, in protest against the recently
enacted law increasing the punishment for "hit-and-run" cases to
imprisonment for up to 10 years. During the protest, they attempted to
burn the effigies of the Hon'ble Minister of Road Transport and
Highways, Government of India, and the Hon'ble Minister of Transport,
Government of Assam. However, they could not succeed due to the
timely intervention of the police.
5 On 17/01/2024, from 1250 hrs to 1445 hrs, approximately 43 local
residents of Dhansirimukh under Bokakhat Police Station, led by Shri
Pranab Doley (Social Activist) and Shri Rajib Pegu, staged a dharna in
front of the DFO Office, Bokakhat, by bringing the carcass of a buffalo
calf in protest against the killing of buffaloes and cows by tigers from
Kaziranga National Park.
Annexure - XVIII
Extract of SITREP
dated 17/01/2024
6 On 12/03/2024, from 1030 hrs to 1145 hrs, approximately 40
members/supporters of Krishak Sewa Dal, Bokakhat, and the E-
Rickshaw Drivers' Association, led by Shri Pranab Doley and Shri Rajib
Pegu, took out a protest rally throughout Bokakhat Town in protest
against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). They also submitted a
memorandum addressed to the Hon'ble President of India and the
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam through the Additional District
Magistrate, Bokakhat.
Annexure - XIX
Extract of SITREP
dated 12/03/2024
7 On 07/06/2026, from 02:00 PM to 05:30 PM, the ATSU, Central
Committee organized a Meeting (70) at Sindhisar Dekasang (Jagiroad
PS) chaired by Sri Biman Pratim Masarang (President, ATSU, Central
Committee) where Sri Litsong Rangphar (Adviser, Karbi Students
Union, Hamren), Sri Pranab Doley (Adviser Human Rights, Bokakhat),
Sri Nabajyoti Swargiary (Gen. Secy., BONSU), Sri Deba Kr. Pegu (Gen.
Secy., AATSU), Sri Abinash Deuri (President, All Dewri Student Union),
Sri Ratneswar Dewri (Adviser, TYCP), Sri Gobindra Rabha (Chief
Secy., Nikhil Rabha Jatiya Parishad), Sri Dilip Bordoloi (Genl Secy.,
TYCP), Sri Pramud Sagra (Genl Secy., ATSU, Central Committee) and
others attended. In the meeting, they mainly discussed about Jagiroad
Satellite Township, opposed it and demanded to give land rights to the
indigenous people.
Annexure - XX
Extract of SITREP
dated 07/06/2026 of
Morigaon District
8 On 08/06/2026, from 12:10 PM to 01:30 PM, the ATSU, Central
Committee in collaboration with Oitihashik Tiwa Raj Darbar / Tiwa
Yuba Chatra Parishad / Tiwa Sahitya Sabha / Tiwa Buddhijibi Manch /
Sadou Tiwa Suraksha Samity / Sadou Asom Gorkha Chatra Sanstha,
Morigaon District Committee led by Sri Biman Pratim
Masarang(President, ATSU, Central Committee) and Sri Pramud Sagra
(General Secretary, ATSU, Central Committee) in presence of Sri
Litsong Rangphar (Adviser, Karbi Students Union, Hamren), Sri Pranab
Doley, (Adviser Human Rights, Bokakhat), Sri Nabajyoti Swargiary
(General Secretary, Bodo National Students' Union), Sri Deba Kr. Pegu
(General Secretary, AATSU), Sri Abinash Deuri (President, All Dewri
Student Union), Sri Gobindra Rabha (Chief Secretary, Nikhil Rabha
Jatiya Parishad), Sri Ratneswar Dewri (Adviser, TYCP), Sri Dilip
Annexure - XXI
Extract of SITREP
dated 08/06/2026 of
Morigaon District
Page No.# 11/34
Bordoloi (General Secretary, TYCP) carryout a Protest Procession (250)
from Amlighat Playground (Jagiroad PS) in protest against Jagiroad
Satellite Township and demanded inclusion of TAC under 6th schedule
of Indian Constitution. The procession paraded towards Deosal Shiv
Mandir and terminated to the starting point.
9 On 28/06/2026 at around 1145 hrs, a meeting was conducted at Rangajan
Field near Hatikhuli, Kohora under Bokakhat Police Station by the
following persons: (1) Shri Amit Nag, President, Jay Bharat Party,
Golaghat (2) Shri Pranab Doley, Organising Secretary, Kaziranga
Bhoomi Suraksha Committee (3) Shri Rajiv Pegu, Member, Kaziranga
Bhoomi Suraksha Committee (4) Shri Mrinali Gowala; (5) Shri Manoj
Gowala; (6) Smt. Geeta Gowala (7) Shri Prabin Gowala; (8) Shri
Aniruddha Gowala (9) Smt. Seema Gowala; (10) Smt. Rashmi Mura
(11) Smt. Kisan, along with approximately 50 other participants. After
concluding the meeting, at around 1430 hrs, the participants proceeded
to Hatikhuli Bagicha Revenue Village, the construction site of the ATDC
project and the proposed Assam Tea Tribe Museum. They attempted to
enter the construction site of the proposed museum. The police party
tried to stop them; however, some of the protesters were armed with
daos and bamboo sticks. The protesters claimed that the land belonged to
them and stated that they intended to resume farming on the land. They
forcefully entered the ATDC-Hyatt project site and removed the survey
ribbons installed by the architects engaged for the Hyatt project. When
the police party intervened to prevent their entry, a scuffle ensued,
during which some police personnel sustained injuries.
Annexure - XXII
Extract of SITREP
dated 28/06/2026
The protesters raised the following demands:
1. The construction work should be stopped immediately.
2. The police deployment at the ATDC-Hyatt project site should be
withdrawn.
3. An immediate meeting should be arranged with the DC.
10 On 29/06/2026, the complainant, SI Sujib Basumatary, S/O Shri
Khargeswar Basumatary, In-charge of Law and Order Duty and
Security-related duty under Kohora Outpost, lodged an FIR stating that
on 28/06/2026, at about 1145 hrs, Shri Amit Nag, President, Jay Bharat
Party, Golaghat; Shri Partha Keot of Jay Bharat Party; Shri Rabi Tanti of
Jay Bharat Party, Golaghat; Shri Lakhan Sewa of AATSA, Jorhat; Shri
Rahul Tanti of Adivasi Sah Janagusti Ganamukti Parisad Asom,
Golaghat; Shri Pranab Doley of the Kaziranga Bhoomi Suraksha
Committee; Shri Rajiv Pegu of the Kaziranga Bhoomi Suraksha
Committee; Shri Bhaskar Saikia of the Kaziranga Bhoomi Suraksha
Committee; Shri Mrinali Gowala, Shri Manoj Gowala, Smt. Geeta
Gowala, Shri Prabin Gowala, Shri Aniruddha Gowala, Smt. Seema
Gowala, Smt. Rashmi Mura, Smt. Kisan, and about 50 (fifty) other
persons assembled at Rangajan Field, Hatikhuli, Kohora, where they
organized a meeting regarding the ongoing Government project at
Hatikhuli Bagicha Revenue Village.
Annexure - XXIII
Extract of SITREP
dated 12/07/2026
Page No.# 12/34
After the meeting, at about 1430 hrs, the aforesaid persons, in a pre-
planned manner and armed with deadly weapons such as machetes,
sharp sticks, and other weapons, proceeded to Hatikhuli Bagicha
Revenue Village and criminally trespassed into the site of the proposed
Tea Tribes Museum and thereafter trespassed into the nearby ATDC-
Hyatt Project. The police party deployed at the site formed a cordon at
the periphery and repeatedly requested them to disperse. However, the
unlawful assembly ignored the lawful directions of the police, forcibly
entered the premises, and started removing the survey ribbons and other
demarcation materials installed by the architects of the Hyatt Project.
They also raised anti-government slogans.
Thereafter, the unlawful assembly proceeded towards the cement mixer
machine inside the ATDC-Hyatt Project, threatened the construction
workers with dire consequences, and compelled them to flee from the
worksite. The unlawful assembly then attempted to damage the cement
mixer, tore the tarpaulin used to cover the machine, poured kerosene
from a nearby container over it, and attempted to set it on fire. However,
the police personnel on duty successfully prevented them from
committing the act.
While the police were lawfully discharging their official duties and
preventing the commission of the above offences, the accused persons
assaulted the police personnel, thereby deterring them from discharging
their lawful duties. As a consequence, a total of 12 police personnel,
including senior police officers, sustained injuries, while one woman
police officer sustained grievous injuries.
While using criminal force, the male accused persons also outraged the
modesty of the women police personnel by inappropriately touching
them. More particularly, the accused persons kicked and slapped both
women and male police personnel, including the Co-District
Superintendent of Police, Bokakhat, the Officer-in-Charge of Kohora
Outpost, and the complainant. Due to the criminal force used against the
on-duty police personnel, a polycarbonate shield was also damaged.
On the instigation of Shri Amit Nag, Shri Pranab Doley, Shri Rajiv Pegu,
Shri Partha Keot, Shri Rahul Tanti, and Shri Lakhan Sewa, the unlawful
assembly staged a sit-in protest inside the project premises and refused
to vacate the area despite repeated lawful requests by the police.
Considering the heavy rainfall, muddy conditions, and the risk of further
injuries, the police repeatedly requested them to shift to a nearby public
place; however, they deliberately refused. Consequently, the Executive
Magistrate was informed and arrived at the spot.
After the arrival of the Executive Magistrate, Shri Amit Nag allegedly
admitted that they had assaulted and strangulated police personnel
because the Government had not accepted their demands and further
stated that assaulting police personnel, including women police
personnel, was not a serious matter. He, along with Shri Pranab Doley
and others, again instigated the crowd and allegedly threatened that they
would bring more persons from Silchar, Dibrugarh, Sivasagar, Tinsukia,
and Khumtai and, if their demands were not fulfilled, would mobilize tea
Page No.# 13/34
garden workers from across Assam to launch further agitations,
including road blockades, and paralyse the administrative machinery.
In this regard, Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 108/2026 was registered under
Sections 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 329(3), 324(2), 324(3), 221, 132,
121(1), 121(2), 351(3), 74, 326(g), and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS). In course of investigation, on 12/07/2026, Shri Bijit
Kutum (41 years), S/o Shri Ghanakanta Kutum, R/o Balijan (Part-1),
P.S. Bokakhat, District Golaghat; Shri Pranab Doley (40 years), S/o Shri
Lakhi Doley, R/o Kalyanpur, Ward No. 2, P.S. Bokakhat, District
Golaghat; and Shri Amit Nag (42 years), S/o Shri Bijay Nag, R/o No. 1
Butolikhowa, Hautoly, P.S. Kamargaon, District Golaghat, were arrested.
The case is presently under investigation.
11 On 03/07/2026 at about 1225 hrs, a group of approximately 40 persons,
led by Shri Lurinjyoti Gogoi (President, Assam Jatiya Parishad), Shri
Swakhya Borgohain (General Secretary, Jatiya Yuva Shakti), Shri Amit
Khataniar (Vice President, Assam Jatiya Parishad), Shri Raju Phukon
(Convenor, Assam Jatiya Parishad), Shri Ankur Pradip Gogoi (Central
President, Jatiya Yuva Shakti), Shri Runu Saikia (Golaghat District
President, Assam Jatiya Parishad), Shri Rebo Gogoi (Member, Assam
Jatiya Parishad), Shri Kanak Gogoi (Secretary, State Committee, Assam
Jatiya Parishad), Advocate Krishna Gogoi, Shri Pranab Doley and Shri
Rajib Pegu (both members of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human
Rights Protection Committee), along with Smt. Geeta Gowala and Smt.
Minali Gowala (members of tea garden families residing near the
proposed Hyatt Hotel Project and Tea Museum at Hatikhuli Bagicha
Revenue Village, Hatikhuli, under Kohora Outpost, Bokakhat Police
Station), assembled in front of the residence of Smt. Geeta Gowala at
Hatikhuli Bagicha Revenue Village, Rangajan under Kohora Outpost,
Bokakhat Police Station. They conducted a meeting regarding the
construction of the proposed Hyatt Hotel Project and the Tea Museum at
the said site.
After the meeting, at about 1340 hrs, the group attempted to enter the
boundary of the Hyatt project site with the intention of stopping the
ongoing construction work. The Circle Officer, Bokakhat Revenue
Circle, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarters),
Golaghat, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Golaghat,
the In-charge, Co-District Superintendent of Police, Bokakhat, and the
Officer-in-Charge, Bokakhat Police Station, arrived at the spot and
restrained them from entering the project site.
It was reported that Shri Pranab Doley and Shri Rajib Pegu instigated the
gathering to become violent. The Circle Officer interacted with the
leaders of the group regarding their concerns. At around 1430 hrs, the
group dispersed from the project site and again assembled in front of the
residence of Smt. Geeta Gowala. At about 1500 hrs, the gathering
dispersed peacefully from the location.
Annexure - XXIV
Extract of SITREP
dated 03/07/2026
It is therefore considered essential to prevent you from acting in any manner
Page No.# 14/34
prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of Public order by detaining you under section 3(2) of the National Security Act,
1980.
You are, however, informed that you have the right to make a representation and you
may submit your representation against the order of detention to the Central Government,
the State Government, the detaining authority or the Advisory Board, NS Act, 1980, through
the Supdt. of District Jail, Golaghat, if you so desire. You may also request a personal hearing
to the Advisory Board.
This communication is made in strict compliance with the provisions of section 8(1) of
the National Security Act, 1980 and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Digitally signed by
DIGANTA BARAH
Date: 30-07-2026
(Shri Diganta Barah, IPS)
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam
Home & Political Department.
5) On being served with the detention order and grounds of
detention through the Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat, the petitioner
had submitted a representation dated 04.08.2026 to the Secretary to the Govt.
of Assam, Home and Political Department. Thereafter, on 05.08.2026, the father
of the petitioner, namely, Sri Lokhi Doley had submitted applications to (i) the
Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat, and (ii) the Assistant Jailor, District Jail,
Golaghat to permit family members, next friend and engaged counsel to meet
the petitioner. It has been projected that as the relatives, next friend and
engaged learned counsel were not permitted to meet the petitioner, the father
of the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition and this
Court by order dated 07.08.2026, passed in W.P.(C) No. 4237/2026, directed the
petitioner to approach the District Magistrate, Golaghat to meet his son, i.e. the
Page No.# 15/34
detenu along with his next friend and it was provided that it is for the
Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat to facilitate such appointment as and
when sought for by the petitioner with his next friend with him, in the same
manner as observed in paragraph 10 in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator,
Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 608. It was further provided that
the detenu is also to be permitted to have interview with a legal advisor of his
choice at any reasonable hour during the day after taking appointment from the
Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat, which appointment should be given by
the Superintendent without any avoidable delay and if required, a jail official
may watch the interview without being present within hearing distance of the
detenu and regulate it in the same manner as observed in paragraph 12 in the
case of Francis Coralie Mullin (supra).
6) It has been projected that only after the said order of this Court
that the petitioner was allowed to meet his learned counsel on 08.08.2026 and
thereafter, submitted representations addressed to the respondent nos. 1 and 2
through the respondent no. 6 for revocation of the detention order. The said
representation was rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, Political (A) Department
vide order no. eCF-821601/132 dated 14.08.2026.
7) The petitioner was served with a copy of wireless message
dated 24.08.2026, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
by which representation of the petitioner against his detention was not acceded
to. The same was served to the petitioner though the Superintendent of District
Jail, Golaghat.
8) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner had submitted that
his submissions against the impugned detention order is on the following broad
Page No.# 16/34
points, viz., (a) non-consideration of the bail order dated 29.07.2026; (b)
detention order was passed to frustrate or defeat the bail order; (c) the
satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on cases of acquittal and on stale
incidents; (d) the grounds of detention is a repetition of allegations made by the
State, which were already considered and not accepted by the Court while
granting bail; (e) the allegations do not relate to public order or security of the
State; (f) the detaining authority had placed reliance on peaceful protest and
memorandum submitted by the petitioner and other protestors; (g) bank
transactions and foreign travel are irrelevant considerations; (h) vague grounds
and non-supply of documents; (i) denial of access to family and counsel; (j)
non-consideration and delay in consideration of representations.
9) In support of the said submissions, the following cases were
cited:-
a. Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. Police Commissioner & Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 370
b. M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1
c. Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) 4 SCC 476
d. Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587
e. Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 415
f. Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 633
g. Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana 2024 INSC 239
h. Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala 2025 INSC 809
i. Anu @ Aniket Through his Father as Next Friend Krupal Singh Thakur vs Union
of India Criminal Appeal No. 2929/2025
j. Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2020) 13 SCC 632
k. V. Shantha v. State of Telangana (2017) 14 SCC 577
l. Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 270
m. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740
n. Dipak Bose alias Naripada v. State of West Bengal (1973) 4 SCC 43
Page No.# 17/34
o. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 531
p. Kamla Kanyalal Khushalani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (1981) 1 SCC 748
q. Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 6 SCC 593
r. Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India 2024 INSC 681
s. Dishant Goel v. Union of India CRWP-9307-2025
t. Lala Paite v. State of Manipur & Ors. 1999 (3) GLT 236
u. Narinder Singh Suri v. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 357
v. Saleh Mohammed v. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 428
w. Rongjam Momin v. Union of India 2006 (3) GLR 328
x. Sabir Ahmed v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 295
y. Satyapriya Sonkar v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini 1999 SCC OnLine All
1628.
10) Per contra, the learned Addl. Advocate General has point-wise
submitted as follows:-
a. As regards the allegation of non-consideration of the bail order dated
29.07.2026 is concerned, it was submitted that the bail granted to the
petitioner on 29.07.2026 was uploaded only on 30.07.2026, but the
certified copy of the order was not available with the detaining
authority.
b. As regards the allegation that the detention order was passed to
frustrate or defeat the bail order, the submissions made in foregoing
sub-paragraph was reiterated.
c. As regards the allegation that the satisfaction of the detaining
authority is based on cases of acquittal and on stale incidents, it was
submitted that the petitioner was found to be involved in a number of
criminal cases over a period of time, which were taken into
Page No.# 18/34
consideration by the detaining authority while passing the detention
order. It was submitted that the competent authority had considered
the nature and gravity, frequency and overall pattern of the activities of
the detenu. It was submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in some
cases because the witnesses turned hostile due to threats and
intimidation and moreover, some witnesses did not turn up. Thus, the
competent authorities had reasons to believe that the witnesses were
being influenced by creating fear. Hence, it was submitted that the fact
that the petitioner was acquitted in a few cases, by itself, does not
render the order of preventive detention as invalid.
In the said regard, it was stated that the petitioner was involved
in the following cases, viz., (1) Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 82/2017, under
Section 147/447/353/506 IPC; (2) Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 86/2017,
under Section 448/353/506/34 IPC; (3) Golaghat P.S. Case No.
457/2017, under Section 307/353/34 IPC; (4) Bokakhat P.S. Case No.
197/2018, under Section 143/353/188 IPC; (5) Bokakhat P.S. Case No.
290/2018, under Section 109/188/353/34 IPC; (6) Bokakhat P.S. Case
No. 162/2020, under Section 188/143/294(A)/353/506 of IPC read
with section 51 DM Act; (7) Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 308/2020, under
Section 141/142/143/188/341/353 IPC; (8) Dergaon P.S. Case No.
267/2020, under Section 141/142/143/109/353 IPC; (9) Bokakhat P.S.
Case No. 186/2023, under Section 109/353/332/34 IPC; (10) Bokakhat
P.S. Case No. 06/2024, under Section 143/341/283/285 IPC; (11)
Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 11/2024, under Section 353/294/34 IPC; (12)
Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 90/2024, under Section 61(2)/308(3)/
294(4)/74/351(2) BNS; and (13) Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 108/2026,
Page No.# 19/34
under Section 61(2)/191(2)/191(3)/190/329(3)/324(2)/ 324(3)/221/
132/121(1)/121(2)/351(3)/74/326(g)/62 BNS, as reflected in the
official records.
d. As regards the allegations that the grounds of detention is a
repetition of allegations made by the State, which were already
considered and not accepted by the Court while granting bail, it was
submitted that the detaining authority had considered all the relevant
factors and moreover, the bail order dated 29.07.2026, was not served
to the Government functionaries till the time the detention order was
passed.
e. As regards the submissions that the allegations do not relate to
public order or security of the State, it was submitted that the
demonstration was not peaceful though after meeting the officials,
memorandums were submitted to the authorities.
f. As regards the allegations that the detaining authority had placed
reliance on peaceful protest and memorandum submitted by the
petitioner and other protestors, it has been submitted that the grounds
of detention clearly reveals that materials were available before the
detaining authority that the activities of the petitioner and other
protestors along with him were violent, which had disturbed the law
and order and also had the potential to disturb public order, for which
the petitioner had to be kept in preventive detention.
g. As regards the allegations that the bank transactions and foreign
travel are irrelevant considerations, it was submitted that the
authorities had recorded their satisfaction that the petitioner had
Page No.# 20/34
indulged in suspicious foreign transaction from doubtful sources in
violation of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, which is detrimental
and inimical to the security of the State. The doubtful foreign exchange
transactions in the petitioner’s bank account, referred to by the learned
Addl. Advocate General, are extracted hereinbefore, being a part of the
Grounds of Detention.
h. As regards the allegations that the grounds of detention are vague
grounds and that relevant documents were not supplied, the learned
Addl. Advocate General had denied the same.
i. As regards the allegations regarding denial of access to family and
counsel, it was submitted that as the petitioner is under preventive
detention, one intending to meet the detenu has to apply before the
competent authority to meet him.
j. As regards, the allegations regarding non-consideration and/or delay
in consideration of representations, the same is denied.
11) The learned CGC appearing for respondent no.1 has referred to
the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no. 1 and had submitted that
the respondent no. 1 has duly explained the time taken for disposal of the
representation submitted by the petitioner. It was submitted that representation
dated 10.08.2026 was never served on the respondent no.1. Moreover, it was
submitted that since the detaining authority is the State Government, he is
adopting the submissions made by the learned Addl. Advocate General.
Reasons and decision:
12) Considered the writ petition; additional affidavit filed by the
petitioner; affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2; affidavit-in- reply
Page No.# 21/34
filed by the petitioner; and affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.1.
Also considered the cases cited at the Bar.
13) Stale criminal cases:
a. The detaining authority, in order to detain the petitioner, had
recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is a person with criminal
background and is accused in many criminal cases and 13 (thirteen)
criminal cases against the petitioner are referred in the grounds of
detention. In respect of those cases, the petitioner was supplied with
copy of the FIR in all the said 13 cases. However, in his affidavit-in-
opposition, the petitioner has taken a specific stand, disclosing the
status of the cases. Out of the 13 (thirteen) cases, the petitioner has
stated that he was acquitted in 9 (nine) cases, being Bokakhat P.S.
Case Nos. 82/2017, 86/2017, 290/2018, 162/2020, 308/2020,
186/2023, 6/2024, 11/2024 and Golaghat P.S. Case No. 457/2017. He
was discharged in Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 201/2024. The proceeding of
Dergaon P.S. Case No. 267/2020 was stayed by this Court. The
proceeding of Bokakhat Case No. 197/2018 was pending at evidence
stage. Moreover, in Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 108/2026, the investigation
was pending and charge-sheet was not yet submitted.
b. Thus, out of 13 referred cases, only three proceeding were live, out
of which one was stayed; one is under investigation; and one is at
evidence stage.
c. The learned Addl. Advocate General had strenuously submitted that
the inputs of the police and investigating agencies was that the
petitioner got acquittal in criminal cases because the witnesses were
Page No.# 22/34
threatened and intimidated. However, it does not appear that in the
grounds of detention, the allegation that the witnesses of 9 (nine)
cases where the petitioner was discharged were threatened, has been
stated.
d. It has been alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition that the witnesses
were threatened, but the same is not a part of the grounds of
detention. Moreover, the material based on which it has been stated in
the affidavit-in- opposition filed by respondent no. 2 that the witnesses
have been threatened, leading to acquittal of the petitioner has not
been furnished to the petitioner. It has been stated in paragraph 20 of
the affidavit in opposition that “… It is pertinent to mention herein that
in some of the aforesaid cases, the petitioner came to be acquitted,
inter alia, on account of witness turning hostile or the prosecution
being unable to examine material witness. The fact of acquittal was
duly taken into consideration; however, the competent authority also
considered the circumstances reflected in the investigation materials
and reports placed before it.”
e. Thus, from the statement made in paragraph 20 of the affidavit-in-
opposition filed by the respondent no. 2, it is apparent that the
material facts were withheld in the grounds of detention that the
petitioner was discharged in one case and acquitted in nine cases. On
a careful perusal of the detention order and the grounds of detention,
it is seen that the detaining authority has not even referred to the fact
of the petitioner being discharged and acquitted in one and nine cases
respectively. As against Dergaon P.S. Case No. 267/2020, which is
stated in the grounds of detention to have been stayed by this Court, it
Page No.# 23/34
has not been mentioned as to whether charge-sheet has or not been
submitted.
f. Therefore, at the time of making proposal, the sponsoring authority
is either deemed to be unaware of the discharge and/or acquittal in
cases which are referred hereinbefore or had suppressed material fact
from the Detaining Authority. Moreover, the Detaining Authority, at the
time of issuing the detention order, did not make any enquiry regarding
the then status of the cases against the petitioner. Therefore, the
detaining authority had no occasion to consider whether the detention
was at all necessary in this case, without following due process of law
of assailing the orders of acquittal and/or discharge of the petitioner.
g. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dharamdas Shamlal
Agarwal (supra), had observed and held as follows:-
9 . … As ruled by this Court in Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of India,
(1986) 1 SCC 404, "even if a criminal prosecution fails and an order of
detention is then made, it would not invalidate the order of detention"
because as pointed out by this Court in Mohd. Subrati v. State of West
Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 250, "the purpose of preventive detention being
different from conviction and punishment and subjective satisfaction being
necessary in the former while proof beyond reasonable doubt being
necessary in the latter" the order of detention would not be bad merely
because the criminal prosecution has failed. In the present case, we would
make stress, not on the question of acquittal but on the question of non-
placing of the material and vital fact of acquittal which if had been placed,
would have influenced the minds of the detaining authority one way or the
other. Similar questions arose in Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal,
(1975) 3 SCC 395 in which the detention order was passed under the
provisions of Maintenance of Internal Security Act. In that case the ground of
detention was founded on a solitary incident of theft of aluminium wire
alleged to have been committed by the detenu therein. In respect of that
incident a criminal case was filed which was ultimately dropped. It appeared
on record that the history sheet of the detenu which was before the
Page No.# 24/34
detaining authority did not make any reference to the criminal case launched
against the petitioner, much less to the fact that the prosecution had been
dropped or the date when the petitioner was discharged from the case. In
connection with this aspect this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 397, para
3)
We should have thought that the fact that a criminal case is pending
against the person who is sought to be proceeded against by way of
preventive detention is a very material circumstance which ought to be
placed before the District Magistrate. That circumstance might quite
possibly have an impact on his decision whether or not to make an
order of detention. It is not altogether unlikely that the District
Magistrate may in a given case take the view that since a criminal case
is pending against the person sought to be detained, no order of
detention should be made for the present, but the criminal case should
be allowed to run its full course and only if it fails to result in conviction,
then preventive detention should be resorted to. It would be most
unfair to the person sought to be detained not to disclose the pendency
of a criminal case against him to the District Magistrate."
10 . It is true that the detention order in that case was set aside on
other grounds but the observation extracted above is quite significant. The
above observation was subsequently approved by this Court in Suresh
Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1975) 3 SCC 554 and in Asha
Devi v. K. Shivraj, Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat, (1979) 1 SCC
222. In the latter case (i.e. Asha Devi), it has been pointed out: (SCC p. 227,
para 6)
...if material or vital facts which would influence the minds of the
detaining authority one way or the other on the question whether or not
to make the detention order, are not placed before or are not
considered by the detaining authority it would vitiate its subjective
satisfaction rendering the detention order illegal.
*
12 . From the above decisions it emerges that the requisite subjective
satisfaction the formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a
detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have
bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority
one way or the other and influenced his mind are either withheld or
suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the
detaining authority before issuing the detention order. It is clear to our mind
Page No.# 25/34
that in the case on hand, at the time when the detaining authority passed
the detention order this vital fact, namely, the acquittals of the detenu in
case Nos. mentioned at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 have not been brought to his
notice and on the other hand they were withheld and the detaining authority
was given to understand that the trial of those cases were pending. The
explanation given by the learned counsel for the respondents, as we have
already pointed out, cannot be accepted for a moment. The result is that the
non-placing of the material fact - namely the acquittal of detenu in the
above-said two cases resulting in non-application of minds of the detaining
authority to the said fact has vitiated the requisite subjective satisfaction,
rendering the impugned detention order invalid.
h. It is not disclosed in the affidavit-in- opposition by the respondent no.
2 as to whether or not the status of all 13 (thirteen) criminal cases
referred hereinbefore was furnished by the Sponsoring Authority to the
Detaining Authority. The lack of complete and full disclosure regarding
the status of criminal cases is found to vitiate the detention order on
account of malice in law, otherwise there was no other reason to
withheld such vital information from the Detaining Authority. The
Detaining Authority had also turned its blind eye towards the same by
not calling for information about the status of those cases.
i. As the petitioner is found to have been detained on the strength of
stale cases, including those wherein he has been discharged and
acquitted, the only inference that can be drawn under the facts of this
case is that the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority, by
issuing detention order, has adopted a short cut to detain the
petitioner instead. As the petitioner is found to have been detained on
the strength of stale cases, including those wherein he has been
discharged and acquitted, the only inference that can be drawn under
the facts of this case is that the Sponsoring Authority and the
Page No.# 26/34
Detaining Authority, by issuing detention order, has adopted a short cut
to detain the petitioner instead of following due process of law by
assailing the respective orders by virtue of which the petitioner was
acquitted and/or discharged in criminal cases referred above.
14) Non furnishing of relevant documents to the petitioner:
a. It appears from the grounds of detention that only the copies of FIR
of 13 (thirteen) criminal cases were provided to the petitioner.
However, the copy of charge-sheets referred against 11 (eleven) cases
has not been furnished to the petitioner.
b. The investigation materials which were considered by the detaining
authority, as stated in paragraph 20 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed
by the respondent no. 2 has also not been furnished to the petitioner.
c. In paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining
Authority has stated as follows:-
2. It appears from police records and intelligence inputs that there are
serious criminal charges against you involving public disorder, violence,
criminal intimidation, and obstruction of justice. The charges also include
offence against women, public servants, hate incitements, extortion, threats,
communal violence.
Moreover, in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, allegation has
been made to the effect that the petitioner is found to be involved in
various activities like road blockades and damages to public properties
However, no particulars of the alleged offence, including place, date
and time of commission of such alleged offences have been disclosed.
d. Thus, the allegations against the petitioner is vague and bereft of
material particulars and thus, insufficient to enable the petitioner to
Page No.# 27/34
understand the specific charges against him.
e. Therefore, it is not only obvious but also admitted by the respondent
no.2 that relevant facts are not disclosed in the grounds of detention
and relevant documents are not furnished to the detenu. Therefore, it
cannot be expected that the detenu will be able to make an effective
representation before the prescribed authorities in the absence of
relevant materials being furnished to the petitioner.
f. In the order dated 14.08.2026, passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary
to the Govt. of Assam, Home and Political Department/ Political (A)
Department (Annexure-12) of the writ petition (page-120-122), at pp.
121, sub-paragraph (b) of the first bullet point “State Government’s
finding & submission”, by which the representation dated 04.08.2026,
submitted by the petitioner was rejected, the paragraph numbering is
not clear. In sub-para (b), it has been stated, inter alia, that police
records and situation reports (SITREPs) demonstrate that under the
garb of public agitation, the detenu repeatedly led armed mobs,
blocked road, disrupted public peace and actively obstructed public
infrastructure projects. However, the grounds of detention does not
show that the police records and situation reports (SITREPs), referred
therein were furnished to the petitioner.
g. In the said order dated 14.08.2026, reference has also been made to
unexplained foreign travels, suspicious bank transactions involving
foreign exchange, but the relevant documents in support of the above
allegation were furnished to the petitioner.
h. Thus, a valuable right of the petitioner has been curtailed by the
Page No.# 28/34
detaining authority by non-disclosure of materials based on which the
authorities had arrived at a satisfaction that the preventive detention of
the petitioner was necessary.
15) Non-consideration of the petitioner’s second representation
dated 10.08.2026:
a. The petitioner has been able to prima facie satisfy the Court that
when his first handwritten representation dated 04.08.2026 was
submitted, he did not have access to family, friends and learned
counsel. Thus, the first representation was submitted without
consulting any family members, friends or any legal assistance
whatsoever. Therefore, the father of the petitioner had to approach
this Court by filing a writ petition and pursuant to the order dated
07.08.2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4237/2026, the
petitioner was permitted to meet his family members, friend and
learned counsel. Thus after intervention of this Court the petitioner
met his family member, friend and leaned counsel and thereafter, the
second representation dated 10.08.2026 was submitted.
b. There are conflicting stand on the point by the petitioner on one hand
and the respondent no. 2 on the other hand. While the petitioner has
taken a stand that on 04.08.2026, he was informed by the Jail
authorities that if he does not reply to the detention order, his right to
make represented would be curtailed and therefore, under mental
duress, a hand written reply against his detention was made. However,
the respondent no.2 has denied the same in his affidavit-in- opposition.
c. The Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner could have
Page No.# 29/34
made an effective representation against his preventive detention only
after having access to his family member, friend and learned counsel.
Hence, for all practical purpose, the second representation was the
detailed representation of the petitioner. Therefore, it was incumbent
on part of the Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat, to send the
second representation dated 10.08.2026 of the petitioner to (a) The
Central Government; (b) the State Government, (c) the Detaining
Authority, and (d) Advisory Board.
d. In the case of Satyapriya Sonkar (supra), one of the questions which
required determination was whether under the scheme of the National
Security Act, 1976 the detenu is entitled to make successive
representation challenging his detention. On the said point of
determination, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had
observed as follows in paragraph 15 thereof:-
Questions no. 2,3 and 4 are related to each other and can be conveniently
consideral and decided together. There is no doubt about the legal position
that the right of representation against preventive detention is constitutional
and safeguard provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution in S. 8 of the
Act is only extention of the same right. The detaining authority is required to
afford the detenu earliest opportunity of making representation against the
order to the appropriate government. The representation so made has to be
forwarded to the Advisory Board while making the reference under S. 10 of
the Act. It is also to be considered by the State Government (appropriate
government) at the earliest. In addition to the aforesaid right petitioner has
also a remedy under S. 14 of the Act under which Central Government and
the State Government may revoke the order of detention. The relief under S.
14 of the Act may be claimed at any namely before the order of detaining
authority is confirmed by the State Government under S. 12 of the Act or
subsequent there to. Thus from the provisions of Act, it is clear that the right
to make representation by the detenu is not confined under S. 8 only. The
detenu may make a second representation to the State Government and the
Central Government under S. 14 of Act for invoking the power of revocation.
Page No.# 30/34
Thus the detenu can make representation more than once during the period
he is under detention. Whether the successive or frequent representations
amount to abuse of the right conferred under the provisions of the Act, can
be dealt with by the State Government and the Central Government and not
by any other authority. The submission of the learned A. GA. was that the
subsequent representations can be permitted only on the basis of fresh
ground which were not available at the time the first representation was
made. The analogy behind this submission appears to be based on the
doctrine of constructive res judicata. A Division Bench of this Court in case of
Sushil Kumar v. Adhikshak, Kendriya Karagar, Naini, Allahabad, 1983 Cri LJ
744 held that the application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata is
confined only to civil action and is entirely inapplicable to any illegal detention
and do not bar a subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court
also observed that Section 14 of the Act providing for revocation or
modification, has a very wide scope which is not the position in the matter of
habeas corpus before the Court. The relevant extract from judgment is being
reproduced below:-
When a detention is challenged before a Court, the Court considers
whether legal imperatives have been observed and the right procedure
has been followed and the proper opportunity, as envisaged in Article
22 (4) of the Constitution as well as under the provisions of the Act in
question, has been afforded. The Court does not examine the
desirability of the detention of the detenu, which depends on so many
other factors including conditions prevailing in any particular region and
the need of the detention, the matter comes within the ambit of
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Besides, while the
Court cannot modify the order as to reduce the period of detention etc.
even that scope is open to the appropriate authority under S. 14 of the
Act.
e. Under the facts, which are unique to the case of the petitioner
herein, the Court is in respectful agreement to the said observation
made by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. It was
incumbent on part of the Jail authorities to forward the petitioner’s
representation dated 10.08.2026 and the concerned authorities, viz.,
State Government, Detaining Authority, Advisory Board and the Central
Government, were required to dispose of the said representation at the
Page No.# 31/34
earliest, which was not done.
f. Thus, in this case, the non- disposal of the representation dated
10.08.2026, submitted by the petitioner, is held to be fatal to the
continued preventive detention of the petitioner.
16) Foreign travels and receipt of foreign remittances:
a. The grounds of detention refers to foreign travel by the petitioner. In
this regard, the State and the police have the information that the
petitioner had visited foreign Countries on 14 (fourteen) occasions.
However, in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has not
given the details of anti-India activity by the petitioner. The grounds of
detention also does not specify in which foreign visit the petitioner
made any speech or statement which has brought disrepute to the
Country or has encouraged seditious activity against the Country.
There is no information as to where the petitioner gave any speech or
statement, which had the potential to threaten the security or integrity
of the Country, territorial, moral, political, social, or otherwise.
b. Repetitive foreign visit, by itself, is not an act which would warrant
preventive detention of a person and curtail his fundamental right to
visit a Country of his choice.
c. Foreign remittance for a sum of Rs.33,660/- on 16.01.2025, and
further 4 (four) foreign remittances for a sum of Rs.1,45,569/- on
22.10.2018, Rs.77,899/- on 08.06.2022, Rs.1,79,180/- on 01.08.2022
and Rs.19,992/- in July, 2023, does not show any live nexus with the
activity of protest in which the petitioner had participated before his
arrest and detention.
Page No.# 32/34
d. In the detention order, the foreign exchange transactions were
flagged as suspicious. But the respondent no. 2 had not been able to
show anything in their affidavit-in- opposition that the said foreign
exchange remittances to the petitioner was the funds which the
petitioner had collected by dubious means and ways to carry out his
protest activities at any point of time.
e. Thus, in respect of charge or suspicious foreign remittances and
foreign travel, the delay in passing the detention order had snapped
the “live and proximate link” between the prejudicial activities of the
petitioner and the purpose of detention and failure on the part of the
detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner.
f. Moreover, along with the grounds of detention, except for a vague
allegation regarding foreign visits and suspicious foreign exchange
receipts, the detaining authority has not furnished to the petitioner any
materials showing how his foreign visits and receipt of foreign
exchange amounts to activities that is prejudicial to the interest of the
State, its security and integrity, or has affected public order.
Conclusion:
17) In light of the discussions on the four reasons referred
hereinbefore, being (i) stale criminal cases; (ii) non-furnishing of relevant
documents to the petitioner; (iii) non- consideration of petitioner’s second
representation dated 10.08.2026; and (iv) foreign travel and receipt of foreign
remittances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the said four reasons
are sufficient to hold that the impugned order of preventive detention of the
petitioner is vitiated and not sustainable on facts and in law. The reference to
Page No.# 33/34
stale criminal cases and old foreign travel and past receipt of foreign
remittances have the effect of snapping the live and proximate link between the
prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the purpose of detention and failure
on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner, or
providing the petitioner with relevant documents. Moreover, under the facts of
this case, the non-disposal of the second representation dated 10.08.2026,
which was submitted after petitioner got access to his family, friend and learned
counsel, is also found to vitiate the continued detention of the petitioner.
18) The detaining authority has not applied its mind as to whether or
not the ordinary laws of the Country was insufficient to deal with the activities
of the petitioner.
19) Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly
allowed. The detention of the petitioner is found to be vitiated on the 4 (four)
broad reasons referred to hereinbefore.
20) Since the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the impugned
detention order no. eCF- 821601/81 dated 30.07.2026, issued by the
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political
Department, Political (A) Department, and the Grounds of Detention bearing no.
eCF- 821601/84 dated 30.07.2026, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, Political (A)
Department, in respect of the petitioner, namely, Pranab Doley is not sustainable
on facts and in law, the detention of the petitioner is to be set aside on the said
four reasons. Thus, the Court is not inclined to traverse on other grounds raised
by the petitioner.
21) Therefore, the petitioner is found entitled to the following
Page No.# 34/34
reliefs:-
a. The impugned detention order bearing no. eCF- 821601/ 81 dated
30.07.2026, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, Political (A)
Department, is hereby set aside and quashed.
b. The impugned grounds of detention bearing no. eCF- 821601/84
dated 30.07.2026, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, Political (A)
Department is set aside and quashed.
c. The petitioner shall be released and set at liberty forthwith from his
preventive detention.
22) Under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own
cost.
JUDGE JUDGE .
Digitally signed by Champak
Rajbongshi
Date: 2026.11.06 16:43:30 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant Private Secretary