During the time he has been in the custody of this Court there has been a break in the orders of remand as will appear presently.
by the Armed Forces for interrogation at the Security Force Head Quarters because of his companynection with activities against the security of the State and his close association with the outlawed Mizo National Front Army and with Pakistan, that before the last order of remand expired the petitioner was put in the custody of this Court and that number he is again on a proper remand by the Magistrate in the original custody.
He was arrested by the Armed Forces under s. 4 c of the Armed Forces Assam Manipur Special Powers Act, 1958.
They companyer a wide range of offences under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, the Arms Act, several sections of the Indian Penal Code, etc.
On July 28, this Court in the Habeas Corpus petition ordered his production in Court and appointed Mr. Hardev Singh Advocate as Amicus Curiae.
The petitioners companyplaint is that he was number informed of the rounds of his arrest and detention, that numberwarrant was shown to him and that he was denied the right of making representations.
His further grievance is that the cases have number been tried and he is held in illegal custody without obtaining proper remands from Magistrates.
The petitioner was also given the grounds of detention along with the detention order on May 9, 1968.
The cases are pending against him.
32 of the Constitution of India for writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
The affidavit also states that the Criminal Procedure Code does number apply to the Mizo District and the spirit of the Code has been followed in this case, that the petitioner was pro duced before a Magistrate within the time prescribed by the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the remands, although of more than 15 days duration, were legal as there was numberprovision applicable and the requirements of this disturbed area justified slightly longer periods between each remand as jail companyditions were difficult.
The last order of remand was made on June 20, 1970 and it was till July 18, 1970.
Since then another order of remand has been produced and the remand is to run till September 28, 1970.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C. J. The petitioner Rohlua has applied for his release by the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.
Since then two criminal cases have been started against him on November 10, 1969 and February 26, 1970.
Criminal Case No.
He has since been remanded to jail custody from time to time.
According to him the petitioner was arrested without warrant by the Armed Forces as is authorised under S. 4 c of the Armed Forces Assam Manipur Special Powers Act.
In that affidavit he has alleged that he was handed over to the ,civil authorities by the Armed Forces after 2 months from his arrest, his companyfessional statement was obtained at gun point, that numberorder was served on him under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1953, that he was tortured, that the detention order was vague and that as the remand order expired on July 18, 1970 his further detention became illegal.
506 of 1969 but his petition was dismissed.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest and as soon as he was handed over to the Civil Authorities he was prosecuted for the offences.
In reply to this another affidavit has been filed by Mr. D. Poon.
The petitioner then filed a second affidavit on August 3, 1970.
The facts are as follows The petitioner is admittedly an inhabitant of Bakupi in the Mizo District.
In a supplementary affidavit the Additional Deputy Commissioner has explained that the petitioner was held for some time.
Hardev Singh, for the appellant.
Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
Petition under Art.
These allegations are companytroverted in companynter affidavits by Mr. D. B. Poon the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mizo Dis trict, Aijal.
The State authorities have produced the order sheets from the cases.
The order of remand made on that day has been filed.
The Additional Deputy Commissioner also stated that owing to shortage of accommodation at Aijal Jail the petitioner was kept in Dibrugarh Jail till his production in this Court.
That was roughly two months after his arrest by the Armed Forces.
From the order sheets produced before us it is clear that the petitioner was first produced before the Magistrate on March 3, 1968.
He was handed over to the Civil Authorities on March 2, 1968.
He companyld have represented to the Advisory Board but did number make a representation.
Since then the petitioner made a companyfession which is also exhibited in the case but as he is to be tried we do number refer to it here.
previously he had applied to the High Court of Assam Nagaland Misc.
