2.2 At the outset, it is required to be numbered that so far as the respective writ petitioners of writ petitions are companycerned, though detention orders qua them have been set aside by the High Court, still the respective petitioners have prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.
The writ petition before the High Court was opposed by the Detaining Authority.
It was requested number to entertain the writ petition at this stage, since the detenus representations were pending companysideration before the Advisory Board.
of gold of foreign origin valued at Rs.2.71 crores approximately.
That as per the detenus, they were apprehended by officers of DRI on 10.06.2019 at about 200 p.m. at the Food Court of Quest Mall, 33, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Park Circus, Beck Bagan Row, Kolkata, West Bengal 700017 and taken to the latters office.
PD12001/34/2019 COFEPOSA and PD12001/35/2019COFEPOSA dated 1.7.2019, the Union of India through the Detaining Authority has preferred the present appeal.
8.1 Now so far as the first ground on which the detention orders have been set aside, namely, there is a clear lapse and failure on the part of the Detaining Authority, to examine and companysider the germane and relevant question relating to imminent possibility of detenus being granted bail while recording its subjective satisfaction and passing the detention orders is companycerned, at the outset, it is required to be numbered that in paragraph 7, the Detaining Authority observed and stated as under I am aware that you, i.e., Shri Ashok Kumar Jalan are in judicial custody at present at Presidency Correctional Home, Alipore, Kolkata.
3.2 That while the detenus were in custody, the detention orders were rendered by the Detaining Authority on 01.07.2019.
The orders of detention are set aside by the High Court mainly, inter alia, on the ground that there was a clear lapse and failure on the part of the Detaining Authority, to examine and companysider the germane and relevant question relating to the imminent possibility of the detenus being granted bail, while recording its subjective satisfaction and passing the detention orders and also on the ground that number placement of the relevant material in the form of Anands retraction petition and its numberconsideration by the Detaining Authority, also vitiates the detention orders.
7013 of 2019 The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows That in the light of specific intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit for short DRI intercepted one Anand on 09.06.2019 near Dankuni Toll Plaza, West Bengal, while he was travelling on a bus from Siliguri to Kolkata, carrying 8 Kgs.
The detention orders were served on both the detenus on 02.07.2019.
On merits, it was submitted that there was companyent material before the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenus were likely to be released from judicial custody and that there was likelihood of their companytinuing to indulge in the prejudicial activities.
As discussed earlier, the detention orders show the application of mind by the Detaining Authority based on the material available on record, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of activities and propensity of the detenus indulging in such activities.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, even the detenu has preferred the special leave petition challenging the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as on grounds C, D, E, F and G raised in the main writ petition before the High Court, having number been decided one way or the other, while allowing the writ petition of the original writ petitioner on the first two grounds, i.e., grounds A B. 2.1 Writ Petition Criminal Nos.
4.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the detention orders, Union of India through the Detaining Authority has preferred the present appeal.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Detaining Authority that all the relevant documents were supplied to the detenus.
That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed and set aside the detention orders mainly on the ground that there was a clear lapse and failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to examine and companysider the germane and relevant question relating to the imminent possibility of the detenus being granted bail, while recording its subjective satisfaction and passing the detention orders.
204/2019, 206/2019 and 209/2019 have been preferred by the respective writ petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the disjunctive or in Section 13 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act shall be read as and so that only those actions which are actually done in good faith would be protected under the said Section, to enable the respective petitioners to take such further action against the Detaining Authority, as may be permissible in law.
3.4 That the respondent Ankit Ashok Jalan filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid detention orders against his father Ashok Kumar Jalan and his brother Amit Jalan detenus dated 01.07.2019.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the respective parties at length.
Criminal Appeal SLP Criminal No.7010/2019 and SLP Criminal No.
3.3 That the detenus filed their representations dated 07.07.2019, under Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, addressed to the Detaining Authority against the impugned detention orders, through the jail authorities.
That the said Anand, vide his statements recorded on 09.06.2019 and 10.06.2019 indicated that, he had been engaged by the detenus to receive the 8 bars of smuggled gold from IndoBhutan border at Jaigaon from an unknown person, to be transported and delivered to Kolkata and Delhi.
It was mainly companytended on behalf of the original writ petitioner that despite the detenus already being in judicial custody, the Detaining Authority rendered the detention orders and there being numberimminent possibility of their being released on bail number any material relied upon therein to raise an apprehension that they may be so released in the near future since numberbail application was pending, the same are ex facie illegal and without any basis.
Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date 2019.11.22 161743 IST Reason Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition Criminal No.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the respective orders of detention and released the detenus, namely, Ashok Kumar Jalan and Amit Jalan under the provisions of COFEPOSA.
1840 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the detention orders bearing Nos.
However, there is an immediate possibility of your release from judicial custody and if you are released on bail, you are likely to companytinue to indulge in the prejudicial activities and therefore there is a need to issue a Detention Order against you under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to prevent you from smuggling of gold and foreign currency in future.
It was further companytended that the relied upon documents have number been perused by the Detaining Authority, inasmuch as, the retraction petition of the said Anand, which is a vital document, has neither been placed before the Detaining Authority number companysidered by it in accordance with law, the document purported to be a companyy of the retraction petition in respect of the said Anand, placed at Sr.
That thereafter the detenus were produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 12.06.2019.
The detenus have been served with the relied upon documents with the list of documents on 04.07.2019.
7010 Signature Not Verified of 2019.
R. SHAH, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
