W.P.(Crl.)/56/2026 of Yatei SV Vs State of Manipur and 2 Ors on 7 September 2026

1. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, 1st Floor, South Block, Room No. 77 & 78, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

2. The Directorate of Police (Prisons), Government of Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. ..... Respondents

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA (ORDER)

(Order of the court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)

08.09.2026

The following abbreviations/short forms are used in this order for the sake of brevity/convenience and clarity:

Sl. No. Abbreviations/ Short Forms

Full Form/Expansion

1. WP Writ Petition

2026:MNHC:196-DB SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2026.09.08 17:50:41 +05'30'

2. said representation representation dated 27.08.2026 from writ petitioner to first respondent, second respondent and Superintendent, Women Foreigners Detention Center, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal (received by all three on the same day i.e., 27.08.2026)

3. said detention centre Women Foreigners Detention Center, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.

4. Foreigners Act the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946)

5. NDPS Act the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985)

6. FIR First Information Report

7. R1 first respondent

8. R2 second respondent

9. R3 third respondent

10. said NDPS Court Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Ukhrul

Captioned WP has been presented in this Court on 07.09.2026 inter-alia with a habeas corpus prayer and the habeas corpus limb of the prayer is predicated on a bail order dated 12.03.2025 made by said NDPS Court in Cril.Misc.(B) Case No. 6 of 2025 (Ref: FIR No. 23(12)2024 UKL PS U/S 18(b)/29 NDPS Act & Section 14 Foreigners Act) and a release order dated 19.03.2025 in Cril.Misc.(B) Case No. 6 of 2025 (Ref: FIR No. 23(12)2024 UKL PS U/S 18(b)/29 NDPS Act & Section 14 Foreigners Act) made by said NDPS Court.

Mr. Tungrei Ngakang along with Ms. Chanreiwon Kashung, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is before this Court.

Short facts are that the writ petitioner who was a Myanmar national married an Indian citizen Mr. M. Zingreiso, son of

M. Yangshi, resident of Khamasom Phungthar Village, Ukhrul District, Manipur (according to writ petitioner the marriage was solemnized on 10.11.2023 as per customary practices of Tangkhul Naga community); that the writ petitioner was arrested on 07.12.2024 (arrested along with 3 (three) other persons) in connection with an ‘FIR being FIR No. 23(12)2024 dated 07.12.2024 on the file of Ukhrul Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 18(b)/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act’ (hereinafter ‘said FIR’ for the sake of convenience); that thereafter, the matter travelled to said NDPS Court which made the afore-referred bail order dated 12.03.2025 followed by a release order dated 19.03.2025; that the writ petitioner continues to be an inmate of said detention centre though afore-referred release order dated 19.03.2025 made by said NDPS Court directs custody of writ petitioner to be given to Mr. M. Zingreiso, son of M. Yangshi who according to writ petitioner is her spouse.

When the matter was taken up, it came to light that the writ petitioner was a Myanmar national and therefore, clearly a ‘foreigner’ within the meaning of Section 2(a) of Foreigners Act but whether she continues to be a foreigner or has obtained Indian citizenship after marrying Mr. M. Zingreiso is not clear and there is no material before this Court in the captioned matter to support either marriage of writ petitioner to Mr. M. Zingreiso on 10.11.2023 or her application or acquiring citizenship of India. Therefore, the short point

is, if writ petitioner is a ‘foreigner’ within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, her detention in said detention centre cannot be construed as illegal detention. Faced with this situation, Mr. Tungrei Ngakang very fairly submitted that he will give up the habeas corpus limb of the prayer as well as other limbs for the present/abridge the prayer and restrict it to a prayer to direct R1 to dispose said representation within a time frame. This submission is recorded.

Issue notice as regards the afore-referred abridged prayer.

Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Public Prosecutor (State Counsel) present in Court, accepts notice for all 3 (three) respondents and learned counsel points out that the writ petition has been presented in 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of said representation. Learned State Counsel also pointed out that requisite documents such as documents evidencing marriage, application or acquiring Indian citizenship by writ petitioner (if any) have not been annexed to said representation.

In the light of the abridged prayer, as the perimeter of captioned WP stands vastly descoped, with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State Counsel, main WP was taken up in the Admission Board itself dispensing with the requirement of filing affidavits-in-opposition by respondents.

Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to scan and reproduce said representation and scanned reproduction of said representation is as follows :

In the light of the narration and discussion thus far, the following order is made :

(i) Mr. M. Zingreiso, son of Mr. M. Yangshi who according to the writ petitioner is her spouse or the writ petitioner herself will send an additional representation/further representation qua said representation annexing relevant documents particularly documents evidencing marriage, application or acquiring of Indian citizenship (if any) and other documents which are relevant. This shall be done by Mr. Mr. M. Zingreiso or the writ petitioner herself by a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 22.09.2026 (if so advised and if so desired). To be noted, 22.09.2026 is the date on which the additional/further representation (if any) shall be delivered in the office of R1 under due acknowledgement;

(ii) R1 is directed to consider said representation and additional/further representation (if any) on its own merits and in accordance with law dispose of the same as expeditiously as his official business would permit but in any event

by 8 (eight) weeks from 22.09.2026 i.e., on or before 23.11.2026;

(iii) If no additional/further representation is received, R1 shall consider said representation and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law on or before 23.11.2026;

(iv) Disposal of said representation and/or said representation together with additional/further representation in the aforesaid manner shall be duly served on the writ petitioner within 5 (five) working days from the date of disposal under due acknowledgment;

(v) If the writ petitioner and/or anyone else concerned with the matter is either aggrieved or not satisfied with the disposal of said representation alone or said representations together with additional/further representation by R1 in the aforesaid manner, it will be open to the writ petitioner and/or any other person concerned with the matter/concerned for the writ petitioner to assail the same in a manner known to law including coming to this Court again. In this regard all the rights and contentions of the writ

petitioner and/or any other person concerned with the matter/concerned for the writ petitioner stand preserved. If such a scenario unfurls, the matter will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order;

(vi) This Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that it is open to R1 to call for further documents either from the writ petitioner or from Mr. M. Zingreiso if any document is considered necessary for disposal of said representation and/or further/additional representation.

Before writing the concluding paragraph of this order, this Court deems it appropriate to write that instant order will not serve as a precedent either for seeking mandamus by approaching this Court immediately on the heels of a representation without giving adequate/ample time to the State to consider the same or with regard to giving a further additional representation on a future date and seeking a direction for disposal of the same. It has become necessary to make this clear as instant order has been made owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the manner in which the writ petitioner is circumstanced and also taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner is being represented by Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel as a Panel Counsel on the matter being referred to him by High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC).

Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner albeit with observations, directions and preservation of rights and contentions in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Sushil

P.S. I : Upload forthwith P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by instant order vide web copy uploaded in High Court website inter-alia as the same is QR coded.