However, subsequently, all of them retracted their statements.
They numbericed two self propelled barges and two dumb barges each towed by a tow boat were around the said vessel.
Two independent panchas were brought and detailed inventory was prepared and after companyducting search of the said vessel and barges, panchnamas were drawn.
During the companyrse of investigation, the officers came to know the name of the appellant detenu and one Chand as the persons behind the said smuggling.
1500 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.
1500 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court.
The officers of the DRI boarded the said vessel and took companytrol of the same.
The vessel and barges were found to be of Mumbai companyst within the Indian territorial waters.
The Captain informed the officers that he has already discharged around 250 MTs of oil from the vessel into three barges before they boarded the vessel.
The Captain was number holding any legal documents for import of the said diesel oil into India.
CMM, Esplanade, Mumbai on 24.12.2004 and were later released on bail on 09.02.2005.
The officers, therefore, brought the said vessel and barges to the P and V Anchorage of Port Trust, Mumbai.
On 09.05.2008, leave was granted.
Brief facts According to the appellant, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence DRI , Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai, received an intelligence that one sea faring vessel by name M.T. AL SHAHABA a motor tanker carrying approximately 700 metric tons MT of Diesel Oil of foreign origin is arriving into Indian Customs Waters on or around 20th or 21st December, 2004 and the said diesel oil would be smuggled into India.
On 04.03.2005, residential premises of the appellant Bobby were searched and finally he was traced on 14.03.2005.
On 03.05.2005, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, after companysidering the appellants high propensity and potentiality to indulge in prejudicial activities and with a view to prevent him from abetting the smuggling of goods in future, passed the detention order against him under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act .
The officers of the DRI seized the said diesel oil weighing about 770 MTs, worth Rs.
The officers of the DRI, Mumbai, therefore, kept surveillance in that area and on 21.12.2004, the officers spotted the said vessel.
During the companyrse of follow up action of the said seizure of the vessel, the officers of the DRI, Mumbai seized about 5.127 MTs of previously smuggled diesel oil stored in two barges at Reti Bunder, Belapur and arrested Chand, Captain Fouad Ahmed Al Manie, Shaikh Ahmedali, Murugan Murugeshan and Sadiq Anwar under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 23.12.2004 and were produced before the Addl.
On the basis of his statement, the officers arrested the appellant on 25.03.2005.
2 crores, under the Customs Act, 1962.
On 12.04.2005, he was granted bail by the Addl.
On 22/23.12.2004, the statement of the Captain of the vessel was recorded wherein he stated that he was asked by his master to take the vessel to the Indian Coast and to deliver the companysignment to one Bobby the detenu in India.
CMM, Mumbai but he did number avail of the same.
On 24.03.2005, the statement of Bobby was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
The High Court, finding numbersubstance in the writ petition, by impugned judgment dated 16.03.2006, dismissed the same.
When the officers made enquiry with the Captain of the vessel Fouad Ahmed Al Manie, he informed that the vessel was carrying High Speed Diesel HSD from Muscat.
1 2 and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned companynsel for Respondent No.4 State.
They also numbericed that pipes were attached from the said vessel to the barges and oil was being pumped into the barges from the vessel.
Mr. K.K. Mani, learned companynsel for the appellant, after taking us through the detention order dated 03.05.2005 and the grounds of detention as well as the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition raised the following companytentions inasmuch as on the date of passing of the detention order, i.e., 03.05.2005, the appellant was in jail, in that event there is numbercompelling necessity to detain him under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act the Detaining Authority failed to take numbere of relevant aspect, i.e., the detenu was in custody, hence, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed on the ground of number application of mind and the Detaining Authority relied upon the retraction statement of company accused without adverting to their companyfessional statement which vitiates the detention order.
Heard Mr. K.K. Mani, learned companynsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Swami, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.
On the same day, the statement of Sayyed Hussain Madar Chand was also recorded wherein he, inter alia, stated that he was to purchase the said Diesel Oil brought by Bobby in India and sell the same.
On the same day, he moved an anticipatory bail application in the Sessions Court, Mumbai which was rejected on 24.03.2005.
Being aggrieved by the said order, on 02.06.2005, the appellant filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
Sathasivam,J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 16.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.
