Page 1 of 29

REPORTABLE

Suppl. Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

W.P. (Crl.) No. 11 of 2026

Shri. Thang Ja Thang Haokip alias Thongjathang Haokip aged

about 46 years, S/o Thangkhomang Haokip resident of Sawbwa

(5), Tamu Sagaing Region Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, North Block,

Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary

(Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External

Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New

Delhi – 110001.

3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, Room No: 78,

South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri,

P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur –

795002.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners

Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,

P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131.

……Respondents

Page 2 of 29

With

W.P. (Crl.) No. 12 of 2026

Shri. Onthang Baite On Thang Baite, aged about 72 years, S/o

(L) Holkhojam Baite, resident of Sawbwa (5), Tamu Sagaing

Region Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, North Block,

Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary

(Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External

Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New

Delhi – 110001.

3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, Room No: 78,

South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri,

P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur –

795002.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners

Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,

P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131.

……Respondents

Page 3 of 29

With

W.P. (Crl.) No. 13 of 2026

Shri Thang Gou Len Baite alias Thanggoulen Baite aged about

26 years S/o Lunkhomang Baite resident of Sawbwa [5] Tamu,

Sagaing, Region, Myanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, North Block,

Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary

(Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External

Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New

Delhi – 110001.

3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, Room No: 78,

South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri,

P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur –

795002.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners

Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,

P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131.

……Respondents

Page 4 of 29

With

W.P. (Crl.) No. 14 of 2026

Shri. Thangkhogin Haokip aged about 29 years, S/o Paokholet

Haokip resident of Tamu Village PS, Tamu District Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, North Block,

Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary

(Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External

Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New

Delhi – 110001.

3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, Room No: 78,

South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri,

P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur –

795002.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners

Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,

P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131.

……Respondents

Page 5 of 29

With

W.P. (Crl.) No. 15 of 2026

Shri. Ginkhosat Touthang aged about 43 years, S/o Jamsei

Touthang resident of Sawbwa (5), Tamu Sagaing Region

Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Manipur represented by Additional Secretary

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, North Block,

Room No. : 127, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

2. The Union of India represented by Under Secretary

(Mayanmar), Government of India, Ministry of External

Affairs (BM Division), Room No. 28, South Block, New

Delhi – 110001.

3. The State of Manipur represented by Commissioner

(Home), Government of Manipur, 2

nd

Floor, Room No: 78,

South Block, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri,

P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur –

795002.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Women Foreigners

Detention Centre, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,

P.O. & P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur- 795131.

……Respondents

Page 6 of 29

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

For Petitioners :: Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate along with

Ms. Chan Kashung, advocate

For Respondents :: Mr. Soraisham Chittaranjan, Additional

Advocate General for Manipur along with Mr.

A. Priyokumar Sharma, Advocate for

respondent Nos.1,3,4,5 & 6;

Mr. N. Nongdamba, Advocate for respondent

No. 2, led by Mr. Kh. Samarjit, Senior

Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of

India (DSGI)

.

Date of Hearing :: 08.05.2026

Date of Judgment & Order :: 08.05.2026

COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(ORAL)

(M. Sundar, CJ)

[1] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners

in all 5(five) captioned ‘Writ Petitions’ (‘WPs’ in plural and ‘WP’ in singular for the

sake of brevity and convenience) is before this Court.

[2] Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that the captioned 5

WPs are directly and squarely covered by a common judgement/order dated

11.03.2026 made in W.P.(Cril.) Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026.

[3] Learned counsel for writ petitioners has placed before this Court a

copy of the aforesaid common judgement/order dated 11.03.2026 in W.P.(Cril.)

Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026 and reproduction of the same is as follows:

Page 7 of 29

‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2026

Shri. Lalnunmawia Gangte, aged about 26 years, S/o (L)

Rochhunga Gangte, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu

District Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur

Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang,

Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home),

Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi –

110001.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa,

Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East

District, Manipur – 795001.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O.

& P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131.

……Respondents

With

W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026

Shri. Lunkhothang Baite alias Lhunkhothang Baite, aged about

46 years, S/o Jamlhun Baite, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu,

Tamu District Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur

Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang,

Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home),

Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi –

110001.

Page 8 of 29

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa,

Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East

District, Manipur – 795001.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O.

& P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131.

……Respondents

With

W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026

Shri. Jamkholal Mate, aged about 45 years, S/o (L) Thongsei

Mate, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District

Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur

Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang,

Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home),

Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi –

110001.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa,

Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East

District, Manipur – 795001.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O.

& P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131.

……Respondents

With

W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of 2026

Shri. Janglenpao Baite, aged about 25 years, S/o Ngamtong

Baite, resident of Tamu village, P.S. Tamu, Tamu District

Mayanmar.

……Petitioner

Vs.

Page 9 of 29

1. Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur

Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang,

Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

2. State of Manipur represented by Commissioner (Home),

Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex,

Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur – 795002.

3. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi –

110001.

4. The Directorate General of Police, Government of Manipur,

Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri, P.O. & P.S.

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795002.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa,

Foreigner Detention Centre, P.S. Lamlong, Imphal East

District, Manipur – 795001.

6. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh, P.O.

& P.S. Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur – 795131.

……Respondents

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

For Petitioners :: Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, Advocate

For Respondents :: Mr. Th. Vashum, Deputy Government

Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2,4,5 & 6;

Mr. N. Nongdamba, Advocate for respondent

No. 3, led by Mr. Kh. Samarjit, Senior Advocate

and Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI)

Date of Hearing :: 11.03.2026

Date of Judgment & Order :: 11.03.2026

COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(ORAL)

(M. Sundar, CJ)

11.03.2026

[1] In the captioned four ‘Writ Petitions’ (‘WPs’ in plural and ‘WP’ in

singular, for the sake of brevity and convenience), writ petitioners are citizens

of Myanmar and are therefore foreign nationals in Union of India. Writ

petitioners entered India along with several others {81 (eighty one) persons

Page 10 of 29

in all} and they were arrested on 27.01.2023 at about 4:00 am by police from

Moreh Police station. A common FIR (First Information Report) being FIR

dated 27.01.2023 bearing FIR No. 4(1)2023, MRH-PS on the file of Moreh

Police Station in Tengnoupal District, Manipur, was lodged. In and by this FIR,

81 (eighty one) persons in all {including 4 (four) writ petitioners} were alleged

to have violated Section 14 of ‘the Foreigners Act 1946 (31 of 1946)’

(hereinafter ‘said Act’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) for alleged

illegal entry and stay in Indian territory. Writ petitioners were produced before

the ‘Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moreh, Manipur’ (hereinafter, ‘said JM’ for

the sake of convenience) on 27.01.2023 i.e., on the same day and the said

JM remanded petitioners to judicial custody. Thereafter, petitioners were

granted default bail. Petitioners complied with the bail conditions and release

orders were also made. When things stood thus, ‘R-1’ {Special Secretary

(Home), Government of Manipur} made an order dated 12.01.2026 bearing

Reference No. H-802/11/2025-HD-HD repatriating the 24 (twenty four) out

of the aforesaid 81 (eighty one) Myanmar Nationals with a direction to hand

over the 24 (twenty four) persons to Myanmar authorities at Tamu through

the Immigration Officer, Moreh on 04.02.2026. It is now learnt that R-1 made

another order of even date i.e., order dated 12.01.2026 bearing Reference

No. H-1701/282/2023-HD-HD repatriating 3 (three) more persons from and

out of the 81 (eighty one) Myanmar Nationals. In these circumstances, a

representation dated 24.02.2026 has been sent by 9 (nine) individuals and

the four addressees are R-2 {Commissioner (Home) Government of Manipur},

R-4 (Director General of Police, Government of Manipur), Superintendent of

Police, Tengnoupal District, Manipur and R-5 (Superintendent of Police,

Sajiwa Jail, Imphal, Manipur). A scanned reproduction of this representation

dated 24.02.2026 (received by R-2) on 26.02.2026 is as follows:

Page 11 of 29

Page 12 of 29

Page 13 of 29

Page 14 of 29

[2] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for writ petitioners,

adverting to the afore-referred representation, submitted that in the

tabulation at the end of the representation, writ petitioner in captioned W.P.

(Crl.) No. 4 of 2026 (Lalnunmawia Gangte) is Sl. No. 5, writ petitioner in

captioned W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang

Baite) is Sl. No. 3, writ petitioner in captioned W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026

(Jamkholal Mate) is Sl. No. 1 and writ petitioner in captioned W.P. (Crl.) No.

7 of 2026 (Janglenpao Baite) is Sl. No. 2.

[3] Learned counsel submitted that 4 (four) writ petitioners are

similarly placed qua afore-referred 27 (twenty seven) individuals who have

been repatriated vide two separate orders (made by R-1) both dated

12.01.2026 about which there is allusion elsewhere supra in this order.

[4] Issue notice.

[5] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned State counsel, accepts notice for R-1,

R-2, R-4, R-5 and R-6, Mr. Nongdamba Naorem, learned counsel, accepts

Page 15 of 29

notice for R-3 and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned senior advocate and Deputy

Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appears on his behalf. To be noted, ‘R-1’ is

an abbreviation denoting ‘1st respondent’ and similar abbreviations have

been used in the instant order with regard to other respondents also.

[6] Though in the admission board, owing to the limited perimeter

within which the matter has to perambulate and in the light of the order this

Court proposes to make, this Court with the consent of all the aforesaid

learned counsel as well as learned senior counsel/DSGI, took up the main

WPs and heard out the same.

[7] There is no disputation or contestation between the parties that

writ petitioner in one of the captioned writ petitions, namely, W.P. (Crl.) No.

5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang Baite) came to this Court

earlier with regard to this very issue vide W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 and the

same was disposed of by this court vide an order dated

10.02.2026, which reads as follows:

‘Sl. No. 1(Suppl)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

WP(Cril.)No.3 of 2026

Lunkho Thang Baite alias Lunkhothang Baite aged about

46 years S/O Zam Lhun Baite alias Jamlun resident of

Tamu village, PS Tamu, Tamu District Myanmar.

Petitioner

Vs.

1 State of Manipur represented by

Commissioner(Home), Government of Manipur,

Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO & PS

Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.

2 Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-

110001.

3. The Director General of Police, Government of

Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, Mantripukhri,

PO & PS Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-

795002.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail

Sajiwa, Foreigner Detention Centre, PS Lamlong,

Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.

5. The Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station at Moreh,

PO & PS Moreh, Tengnoupal District, Manipur-795131.

Respondents

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

Page 16 of 29

(ORDER)

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

10.02.2026.

[1] Captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (‘WP’ for the sake of brevity) has been

filed inter alia with a Habeas Corpus prayer.

[2] Factual matrix in a nutshell is that writ petitioner was arrested

on 27.01.2023; that an FIR being FIR 04(01)2023 on the file of Moreh

Police Station in Moreh Sub-Division, Tengnoupal District, Manipur

was registered; that vide this FIR, it was alleged that writ petitioner has

violated Section 14 of ‘the Foreigner Act 1946 (31 of 1946)’ (hereinafter

‘said Act’ for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) i.e., illegal

entry and staying in Indian territory; that it is admitted case of writ

petitioner that he is a citizen of Myanmar; post FIR, writ petitioner was

produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court i.e. ‘Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moreh’ (‘said Magistrate Court’ for the

sake of convenience and clarity); that said Magistrate court, on the

same day i.e., 27.01.2023 made a warrant for interim custody; that

thereafter, writ petitioner appears to have sought bail (to be noted

neither the bail petition nor the bail order have been placed before us);

that a release order has been made by said Magistrate Court and this

release order is dated 02.05.2023; that this release order has also

been assailed by writ petitioner (in addition to Habeas Corpus plea) in

the captioned WP; that the release order imposes conditions of two

sureties to be furnished besides personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-; that

post release order, admittedly writ petitioner has not been able to

comply with the bail conditions of furnishing two sureties and therefore

continues to remain incarcerated in the Foreign detention Centre

situate in Manipur Central Jail Sajiwa; that thereafter the Special

Secretary(Home), Government of Manipur made an order dated

12.01.2026 bearing reference No.H -1701/282/2023-HD-HD

repatriating 3(three) individuals by exercising power under Section

11(1); that on the same day i.e.12.01.2026, the Special

Secretary(Home) made another repatriation order bearing reference

No.H-802/11/2025-HD-HD repatriating 24 other individuals; that

thereafter writ petitioner and 8(eight) others (9 in all) have sent a

representation dated 04.02.2026 to R1,R3 and R4 and also the

Superintendent of Police Saijiwa Jail Imphal inter-alia seeking

deportation/repatriation to Myanmar and some other requests such as

return of personal mobile phone have also been made in this

representation.

[3] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for writ petitioner

submitted that writ petitioner is languishing in the Detention Centre for

more than 3(three) years now i.e., from 27.01.2023 and therefore,

Habeas Corpus plea has been made. As regards the Habeas Corpus

plea, it is made clear that writ petitioner continues to be in Detention

Centre only owing to non-compliance with the condition in the bail

order/release order i.e., condition to furnish sureties. This means that

this not a case of illegal detention. Therefore, a Habeas Corpus plea

will not lie. Be that as it may, if writ petitioner is aggrieved by

conditions imposed for release vide the release order, it is always open

to the writ petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the appropriate

Page 17 of 29

court inter alia seeking modification/deletion of the conditions for

release. This right of the writ petitioner is preserved but the Habeas

Corpus plea is rejected.

[4] This takes this Court to the representation i.e., representation

dated 04.02.2026 made by writ petitioner and 8 others (9 in all) about

which there is allusion supra. This representation shall be referred to

as ‘said representation’ for the sake of convenience.

[5] At the outset, we notice that said representation is dated

04.02.2026, it has been received by the office of DGP (Director

General of Police) P.H.Q, Manipur Imphal on same day i.e.,

04.02.2026 and the captioned writ petition has been filed on

09.02.2026. However, considering the nature of the matter we are

looking into said representation.

[6] Adverting to said representation, learned counsel for writ

petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons i.e., 27(twenty

seven) in all have been repatriated by two repatriation orders, both

dated 12.01.2026 (details of which have been set out supra) but writ

petitioner has not been given such benefit of repatriation and this

according to learned counsel for writ petitioner is lack of parity.

[7] Issue notice to respondents.

[8] Mr. Vashum, learned State counsel accepts notice for R 1,3, 4

& 5. Mr. N. Nongdamba, learned counsel accepts notice for R2 and

Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India(DSGI) and

senior counsel appears on behalf of Mr. N. Nongdamba,.

[9] Though in the admission Board, with the consent of all the

aforesaid learned counsel and senior counsel, main WP was taken up

on the short point pertaining to said representation.

[10] As regards said representation, Mr. Vashum, learned

State counsel pointed out that said representation is dated 04.02.2026

and it has been received on the same day, there have been only two

working days thereafter and at the highest barely 4(four) days

thereafter as the captioned WP has been filed yesterday (09.02.2026).

Learned State counsel submitted that the representation can be

examined on merits by R1 {State of Manipur represented by

Commissioner(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat

Complex, Mantripukhri, PO & PS Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur-794002}

[11] As regards R2, learned DSGI and learned senior

counsel very fairly submitted that in the light of the trajectory the matter

has taken, there is no role for Respondent No.2 at this juncture.

[12] To be noted, one of the prayers i.e., the second limb of

the prayer vide (b) of the prayer paragraph writ petitioner has made a

prayer to quash the 02.05.2022 release order. If the release order is

quashed writ petitioner will remain incarcerated. We accept the fervent

plea of learned counsel for writ petitioner that this may be treated as

quashing the conditions in the release order i.e., the condition to

produce sureties. We take this liberal view considering the nature of

the matter but with a caveat that other matters will be dealt with on a

case to case basis.

[13] Before concluding, it is necessary to write that ‘R1’ is

an abbreviation denoting ‘first respondent’ and similar abbreviations

have been used with regard to other respondents also.

Page 18 of 29

[14] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive

reasoning set out thus far, the following order is made:

(i) the Habeas Corpus plea is rejected as it is not a case of illegal

detention;

(ii) plea to quash the release order dated 02.05.2023 is not acceded to

but the rights of writ petitioner to seek modification/deletion of the

conditions for release in the appropriate court under appropriate

provision of law is preserved. If such a course is adopted by writ

petitioner, the court concerned shall consider the matter on its own

merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order;

(iii) other prayers pertaining to declaration that the detention is illegal,

release on personal bond and direction to respondent to issue

temporary stay permission are rejected.

[15] As regards said representation i.e., representation

dated 04.02.2026, a scanned reproduction of the same is as

follows:

Page 19 of 29

Page 20 of 29

[16] To be noted, writ petitioner is serial No.8 in the

tabulation part of said representation. R1 is directed to consider the

aforesaid representation on its own merits and in accordance with

law, particularly with reference to the point that similarly placed

persons have been repatriated/deported and make a speaking

order. We make it clear that this exercise shall be done by R1 by

considering the said representation on its own merits and in

accordance with law. A speaking order shall be made as

expeditiously as possible but in any event within 6(six) weeks from

today i.e., on or before 24.03.2026.

[17] The speaking order thus made in the aforesaid manner

shall be duly served on writ petitioner under due acknowledgement

within one week from the date of making of the order and in any

event, the outer limit will be 31.03.2026. It is made clear that if the

Page 21 of 29

writ petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid speaking order, all the

rights and contentions of writ petitioner are preserved to assail the

same in a manner known to law.

[18] Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

John Kom

PS I : Upload forthwith

PS II : All concerned will remain bound by this order when

uploaded in the official website of High Court which is QR

coded.

FR/NFR’

All learned counsel on both sides agree that a similar

order can be made.

[8] Before we do that, for the sake of clarity and specificity,

we deem it appropriate to write that in respect of W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of

2026 (Lalnunmawia Gangte) the date of release order made by said

JM is 10.05.2024 and with regard to the other three writ petitioners in

W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang baite),

W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026 (Jamkholal Mate) and W.P. (Crl.) No. 7 of

2026 (Janglenpao Baite), date of release order is 02.05.2023.

[9] As regards one of the captioned writ petitions, namely,

W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 (Lunkhothang Baite @ Lhunkhothang Baite

-writ petitioner) he is the writ petitioner in afore referred earlier W.P.

(Crl.) No. 3 of 2026. Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel for

petitioners, submits that when the earlier writ petition, W.P. (Crl.) No.

3 of 2026 was moved, he did not have adequate instructions regarding

conditions of bail particularly sureties and therefore he erroneously

stated that sureties have not been furnished but it now comes to light

that sureties have been furnished and it is after furnishing of sureties

that the release order has been made by learned said JM on

02.05.2023. Therefore, as regards one of the captioned writ petitions,

namely, W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026, we treat the same as a review plea

(with consent of all afore-referred counsel) by exercising our inherent

constitutional powers. To be noted, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the nature of the matter, the manner in

which writ petitioners are circumstanced as also the fair stand of

learned counsel for writ petitioners, we resort to treating W.P. (Crl.)

No. 5 of 2026 as a review as a one oft matter making it clear that this

will not serve as a precedent in all and every case to follow. Therefore,

Page 22 of 29

the sequitur is, instant order will govern W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026 in

place of order dated 10.02.2026 made in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026

which now stands reviewed and rercalled. In the light of the

common/joint submission made in unison by both sides that a similar

order as in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3 of 2026 (earlier order dated 10.02.2026)

can be made, we proceed to make the following order:

(a) we direct the Commissioner (Home) Government of

Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO &.

PS Heingang Imphal East District Manipur 795002 to dispose

of the afore-referred representation (said representation)

dated 24.02.2026 (scanned and reproduced elsewhere supra

in instant order), as expeditiously as the official business of

the officer would permit but in any event within three weeks

from today, i.e., on or before 01.04.2026;

(b) we direct the afore-referred Commissioner (Home) (to

be noted, ‘Commissioner (Home)’ is representing ‘State’ and

has been described as ‘R-2’ in the captioned WPs) to consider

the said representation on its own merit and in accordance

with law particularly with reference to the point that similarly

placed persons have been repatriated/deported by exercising

powers under Section 11(1) of said Act;

(c) we direct R-2 to make a speaking order;

(d) we make it clear that afore-referred exercise shall be

done by R-2 by considering the said representation on its own

merits and in accordance with law as already alluded to

supra;

(e) the speaking order made by R-2 in the aforesaid

manner shall be duly served on each of the writ petitioners

under due acknowledgment within one week from the date

of making of the order and in any event on or before

08.04.2026.

[10] Before concluding, this Court makes it clear that if writ

petitioners, any one of the writ petitioners or some of the writ

petitioners are either not satisfied or aggrieved by the speaking

order/s to be made by R-2 in the aforesaid manner, it is open to writ

petitioner/s to assail the same in a manner known to law and if such

a scenario unfurls the challenge will be considered on its own merits

and in accordance with law;

[11] Captioned WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Page 23 of 29

[4] Issue notice to respondents.

[5] Mr. Soraisham Chittaranjan, learned Addl. Advocate General for

Manipur along with Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, learned State counsel accepts

notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6, N. Nongdamba, learned counsel

accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and senior advocate and learned

Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Mr. Kh. Samarjit appears on his behalf.

[6] Considering the limited scope of the captioned WPs, all the afore-

referred counsel on both sides agreed to have main WPs taken up and disposed

of without affidavits-in-opposition.

[7] Learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Soraisham Chittaranjan and

learned DSGI, Mr. Kh. Samarjit very fairly submitted that an order akin to afore-

referred judgment/order dated 11.03.2026 in WP(Cril.)Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026 can

be made in the instant cases also. This makes the legal drill at hand qua disposal

of captioned 5(five) WPs fairly simple.

[8] Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that in the cases at

hand, the 5 (five) writ petitioners along with 4(four) others (9 in all) have sent

a common representation dated 24.02.2026. The copy of this representation

placed before this Court brings to light that this ‘24.02.2026 common

representation’ (‘said representation’ for the sake of convenience and brevity)

has been received by respondent No.3 on 26.02.2026 itself and captioned WPs

have been presented in this Court on 07.05.2026.

Page 24 of 29

[9] A scanned reproduction of said representation dated 24.02.2026 is

as follows:

Page 25 of 29

Page 26 of 29

Page 27 of 29

Page 28 of 29

[10] In the light of the narrative thus far, we make a similar

judgement/order i.e., a judgment/order akin to common order dated 11.03.2026

made in WP(Cril.) Nos. 4 to 7 of 2026 and give the following directions:

(a) we direct the Commissioner (Home) Government of Manipur,

Manipur Secretariat Complex, Mantripukhri, PO &. PS Heingang

Imphal East District Manipur 795002 to dispose of the afore-

referred representation (said representation) dated 24.02.2026

(scanned and reproduced elsewhere supra in instant order), as

expeditiously as the official business of the officer would permit

but in any event within four weeks from today, i.e., on or before

05.06.2026;

(b) we direct the afore-referred Commissioner (Home) {to be noted,

‘Commissioner (Home)’ is representing ‘State’ and has been

described as ‘R-3’ in the captioned WPs} to consider the said

representation on its own merits and in accordance with law

particularly with reference to the point raised by writ petitioners’

counsel, i.e., that similarly placed persons have been

repatriated/deported by exercising powers under Section 11(1)

of the Foreigners Act 1946 (31 of 1946);

(c) we direct R-3 to make a speaking order qua disposal of said

representation;

(d) we make it clear that afore-referred exercise shall be done by

R-3 by considering the said representation on its own merits and

Page 29 of 29

in accordance with law albeit with reference to point raised

about which there is allusion supra in previous directive as

already alluded to supra;

(e) the speaking order made by R-3 in the aforesaid manner shall

be duly served on each of the writ petitioners under due

acknowledgment within one week from the date of making of

the order and in any event on or before 12.06.2026.

[11] Before concluding, this Court makes it clear that if writ petitioners,

any one of the writ petitioners or some of the writ petitioners are either not

satisfied or aggrieved by the speaking order/s to be made by R-3 in the aforesaid

manner, it is open to writ petitioner/s to assail the same in a manner known to

law and if such a scenario unfurls such challenge will be considered on its own

merits and in accordance with law;

[12] Captioned WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner inter-alia

with afore-referred directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

John Kom

P.S. I : Upload forthwith

P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website

inter alia as the same is QR coded.