Court quashes detention order due to lack of evidence for continued custody.

The court quashed the order of detention made under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA, citing the lack of material indicating the likelihood of the petitioner's release while already in judicial custody. Emphasizing the necessity for such material, the court found the grounds of detention insufficient as they only mentioned a "possibility" of release if a bail petition was filed. The detenu was to be released unless required in another case or under a competent court order, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The validity of the order of detention made by the Administrator of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA is challenged in a petition for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The petitioner, a foreign national, was apprehended at the Customs Hall with a substantial quantity of gold concealed in a VCR. He admitted to smuggling gold and was arrested. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act on May 13, 1992, and the charges were framed on August 11, 1992. The impugned order of detention was made on August 18, 1992, citing the necessity to prevent the petitioner from engaging in smuggling activities based on his visits to India and local contacts.

2. The main contention raised was that the petitioner was in judicial custody when the order of detention was made, with no pending bail application or indication of imminent release. The petitioner argued that the authority did not consider the fact that he was already in custody and there was no material to believe in the possibility of his release.

3. The Additional Solicitor-General argued that the authority actively pursued the matter, collected material, and was aware of the petitioner's past record, deeming his detention essential. However, the court emphasized the need for material establishing the likelihood of the detenu's release and whether the authority was satisfied on this aspect.

4. The grounds of detention mentioned a "possibility" of the detenu's release if a bail petition was filed, falling short of the requirement set by previous court decisions. The court found that there was no material indicating the likelihood of the petitioner's release, leading to the quashing of the detention order.

5. The court held that the principle enunciated in previous cases applied, and the order of detention was quashed. The detenu was to be released if not required in any other case or not detained under a competent court order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---