2006 (6) TMI 504 - SC - Customs

Detention Order Upheld: No Delay in Representation, Confession Validates Case, Bail Likelihood Reasonable, Appeals Dismissed.

The HC upheld the detention order, dismissing the appellant's challenges. It found no undue delay in representation disposal, as the detenu's early writ ... Habeas Corpus Petition - delay in disposal of the representation - detenu not filed any application for bail - HELD THAT:- It may be noted that the writ petition was filed on 22.12.2005, even before the order of rejection was served. That being so the detenu cannot make grievance that the State had not explained the position as to how his representation was dealt with. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipsi-dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. In that background this Court observed that it was not 'normal' case. The High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant. Looked from any angle the Judgment of the High Court does not warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed. Issues:1. Delay in disposal of representation2. Reliance on co-accused's statement without supplying a copy3. Detaining authority's inference on possibility of detenu being released on bailAnalysis:Delay in disposal of representation:The appellant challenged the detention order of the detenu, citing delay in representation disposal. The representation was sent on 11.12.2005, received by authorities on 15.12.2005, and rejected on 27.12.2005. The High Court found no negligence or delay, emphasizing the need for case-specific consideration. The Court highlighted the importance of timely action in preventive detention cases to uphold safeguards. The detenu's early filing of the writ petition before rejection precluded grievances on representation handling.Reliance on co-accused's statement without supplying a copy:The appellant argued that reliance on the co-accused's statement without providing a copy infringed the detenu's rights. However, the Court distinguished between documents relied upon and those referenced. The detention order was not based on the co-accused's statement but on the detenu's confession. The Court clarified that non-supply of a referenced document should show prejudice for effective representation. As the detenu's confession was provided, the High Court's conclusion was deemed justified.Detaining authority's inference on possibility of detenu being released on bail:The detaining authority inferred the possibility of the detenu being released on bail due to not filing a bail application. The Court noted that bail acceptance varies case by case, and detaining authority's satisfaction on bail likelihood is subjective. The authority's reasoning was supported by past bail orders in similar cases. The appellant's reliance on a different case was dismissed as it had unique circumstances. The High Court's decision was upheld, emphasizing no interference was warranted.Additional Judgment:Another appeal, similar to the present case, was dismissed based on the reasons outlined in the primary judgment. Both appeals were denied, maintaining the High Court's decisions.