1,78,286/ was allegedly recovered from his possession.
As the detaining authority did number go into these circumstances, the petitioner companytended that the detention order must be quashed.
The petitioner moved an application for furnishing cash security for the purpose of his bail and the same was granted.
This order was served on the petitioner on 18.1.1994 when he was still in judicial custody.
At that time, he made a companyfessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act which, according to the petitioner, was obtained under companyrcion.
After the service of the aforesaid detention order, on 1.8.1994, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi discharged the petitioner from the prosecution proceedings.
and as the detention order had been served when the detenu was still in custody, the said detention order dated 17.9.1992 passed against the petitioner was quashed.
On 17.9.1992, an order of detention was passed against the petitioner under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA Act for a period of one year.
The petitioner, thereafter filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
While on bail, an application was filed on 7.1.1994 by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi to the effect that due to certain circumstances, he had to withdraw the cash security and that upon such withdrawal, he was prepared to surrender.
On 16.4.1992, the said Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted the petitioner bail upon his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.
50,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
547 of 1994 challenging his detention under COFEPOSA Act pursuant to the order dated 17.9.1992.
Under the circumstances, it was companytended that the detaining authority should have companysidered whether there was reasonable likelihood of the petitioner being released by the criminal companyrt and if so, whether he would involve himself in prejudicial activities under the COFEPOSA Act once again.
This judgment will dispose of the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of detention dated 25.4.1995 passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act and the appeal arising by way of special leave challenging a direction given by the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 23.11.1994 which in effect, permits the respondents to pass a fresh order of detention.
This fresh detention order has been challenged in the Writ Petition filed in this Court while the Special Leave Petition has been filed challenging the above numbered observation of the High Court which has been relied upon by the respondent for passing a fresh detention order.
The petitioner was arrested and was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi who remanded him to judicial custody.
This order was passed because the prosecution had number been able to produce any witness inspite of several opportunities having been granted to it.
He, thereupon sent a representation on 18.2.1994 to the detaining authority through the Jail Superintendent, but the same was rejected on 2.3.1994.
One of the companytentions raised before the High Court was that before the detention order was served, the detaining authority did number companysider the fact that the petitioner was number on bail and that he was in judicial custody.
As a result of his personal search, foreign currency valued at Rs.
N. Kirpal, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. Crl.
2467 of 1995.
On the application being allowed, the petitioner surrendered and he was taken into judicial custody.
Petitioner was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi Airport by the Custom Officers on 31.3.1992 when he was departing for Dubai.
