Staff Reporter
ITANAGAR, 27 Dec: The Itanagar Permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Yupia vide order dated 21 Dec vis-a-vis WP(C)12 (AP)/2023, quashed the detention order (dated 30 August) of Ngwazosa Yobin, a youth leader of Vijaynagar area in Changlang district under National Security Act (NSA) and ordered his release from the custody of the sub-jail in Changlang.
On Tuesday, the office of the deputy commissioner, Changlang also issued his release order following the court’s direction.
Yobin was detained under the NSA on 30 August this year for allegedly leading a meeting at Gandhigram on 4 June, 2023 and instigating people to destroy infrastructure belonging to the forest department at 40th Miles, Miao-Vijaynagar road, on 5 June, 2023. On the same day, a group of around 100-140 men and women had burned down several establishments of Namdapha National Park & Tiger Reserve, ie, OBT protection camp, open hall kitchen, check gates, watch towers located at 40th Miles, Miao-Vijaynagar road.
Yobin was also accused of intimidating the state government and the authority of the national park on various occasions over boundary demarcation of the national park, claiming that the area of the Namdapha National Park was the Yobin community’s ancestral land, and that he threatened to carry out similar activities against the establishment of any government facilities within the Namdapha National Park.
He was earlier arrested on 12 June by the Miao police in connection with a case [u/s 120 (B)/447/427/392/186/506 IPC], on the basis of a written complaint filed by the FD of the Namdapha National Park & Tiger Reserve in Miao against him. He got bail on 30 August, but was detained under the NSA on the same day.
The Itanagar Permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court in its order, stated that it had impugned the order dated 30 August, 2023 on the grounds that “there is no live link or nexus of the activities of the detenu, including the past antecedents, with immediate need to order his detention under NSA, as the same (activities of the detenu) cannot be said to have prejudicially affected the security of the state and maintenance of ‘public order,’ rather the same appears to be the issue of ‘law and order’ and the existing legal framework is sufficient to deal with the same.”
