Earlier, on 1st January, 1985, the officers of the Customs Department recovered eight foreign gold biscuits from Om Parkash soni and immediately thereafter searched the residence of Sitaram Somani and recovered thirty six foreign gold biscuits from a steel case in an almirah in the house.
Shri Om Prakash had also moved bail application in the companyrt of Addl.
Later it was said in the same affidavit Moreover the documents enumerated in these paras were number companysidered and were number material.
The bail applications were number material to be placed before the detaining authorityThe representation dated 18.1.1985 of Shri Om Prakash Soni addressed to the Collector, Customs and its reply dated 16.2.1985 from the office of the Collector, Customs, Jaipur were number companysidered relevant to be placed before the detaining authority.
12,100 US dollars were also recovered.
Bail was refused by the Magistrate.
Sitaram Somani moved the High Court of Rajasthan under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas companypus.
It was the detaining authority that had to companysider the relevant material before taking a decision whether it was necessary to detain the appellant under the COFEPOSA.
The application was rejected by the High Court and the present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court refusing to issue a writ of habeas companypus.
At that time, it was said All matters pertaining to companyfessional statements, retraction of companyfessional statements, bail applications, companyrts orders and all other records were placed before the Screening Committee by the Customs Department.
It appears that thereafter the detaining authority, that is, the chief Minister of Rajasthan passed orders on May 29, 1985.
From what has been stated in the companynter filed by the Union of India and the two companynters filed by the State of Rajasthan, it appears to be clear to us that the documents mentioned by the appellant in his petition were number placed before the detaining authority and, therefore, were number companysidered by the detaining authority.
The ground raised by the appellant in the High Court in his own words is as follows That there has been number application of mind in passing the detention order.
It appears from the companynter that thereafter the papers were processed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Shri Pagoria, who stated in the affidavit Before passing the detention order, the whole record of the Customs Department was called companysidered by me at the time of processing on 21.5.1985.
1475 of 1985 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
One of the companyditions was that the two accused should number leave India without the permission of the learned Sessions Judge.
Sitaram Somani has also filed criminal writ petition No.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Session Court and High Court.
In the second companynter, it was claimed that the Screening Committee companysisting of the Law Secretary, the Director General and the Inspector General of Police and the Collector of Customs met on April 4, 1985 and companysidered the question of detaining the appellant under the COFEPOSA.
The petitioner says that the following relevant facts which would have weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influenced the mind of the detaining authority have been purposely withheld and suppressed from the detaining authority thus vitiating the satisfaction a That the petitioner in his bail applications Annexure A B had retracted from the companyfessional statement and had denied any recovery of gold, foreign currency from his premises.
On behalf of the State of Rajasthan, two companynter affidavits were filed.
The passports of the accused had already been seized by the Customs Department.
That was number done and there was, therefore, a clear number application of mind by the detaining authority to relevant material.
On behalf of the Union of India, who was the second respondent before the High Court, a companynter affidavit was filed in which it was stated It is number denied that the bail application moved by the petitioner was number submitted before the detaining authority but it is denied that they were number placed before the detaining authority purposefully with a view to suppress.
f g The petitioner says that the above material being very relevant and material which would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other has been suppressed from the detaining authority.
But thereafter on applications made by the two accused persons, the High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to both of them subject to certain companyditions.
The petitioner has number suggested any material in the said documents which was over and above and very material relevant for the purpose of companysideration for the detaining authority.
One of the principal points taken in the High Court and repeated before us was that there was numberapplication of mind by the detaining authority as certain vital facts were number brought to the attention of the detaining authority and were, therefore, number taken into companysideration by that authority.
The accused were at large from January 19, 1985 till June 4, 1985 when they were arrested under the provisions of the COFEPOSA.
However, all these documents were also companysidered at the time of companyfirming the detention order on 14th August, 1985.
Without that the petitioner cannot take any advantage on the sameThe bail application can never be said to be material document for the purpose of companysideration of the detaining authority when the representations were already companysidered.
The appeal and the writ petition have been beared together.
He had retracted from his companyfessional statement and also his association with the petitioner.
Sitaram Somani and Om Parkash were arrested and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2nd January, 1985.
The petitioner had retracted from the statement by making an application to the Collector of Customs on 19.1.1985.
In the first one, it was stated The documents referred to by the petitioner in this para are number relevant.
Shri Om Prakash had also retracted from his companyfessional statement by making an application on 18.1.1985.
A statement was recorded from Sitaram Somani.
SItaram Somani is under detention pursuant to an order dated June 4, 1985 made by the State of Rajasthan under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Special leave granted.
