TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Quashes Detention Order Emphasizing Bail Rights</h1> <h3>P.P. Rukhiya Versus Joint Secy., Government & Anr.</h3> P.P. Rukhiya Versus Joint Secy., Government & Anr. - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 201 (SC) Issues:1. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act when the detainee was already in jail.2. Justification for passing preventive detention orders when no bail application is pending.Issue 1: Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act when the detainee was already in jail:The case involved a detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) against the husband of the appellant while he was already in jail. The appellant challenged the detention order through a writ petition after it was executed on her husband. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that since her husband was already in custody without any bail application pending, there was no basis for the detention order. The Supreme Court referred to various judgments, including 'Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu,' which emphasized that preventive detention orders can only be justified when there is a real possibility of the person being released on bail. The Court reiterated that in the absence of a pending bail application, there is no legal basis for preventive detention. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the detention order dated 06.10.2003.Issue 2: Justification for passing preventive detention orders when no bail application is pending:The appellant's counsel argued that without a pending bail application, there was no apprehension or justification for the detaining authority to pass a preventive detention order against the appellant's husband who was already in jail. The Supreme Court, relying on the principle laid down in 'Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu,' highlighted that the possibility of release on bail is a crucial factor in justifying preventive detention. The Court emphasized that unless there is a realistic chance of the person being granted bail, passing a detention order is unwarranted. The judgment underscored that the mere fact of being in custody without a bail application does not warrant preventive detention. Therefore, the detention order in this case was deemed invalid, and the appeal was allowed, leading to the quashing of the detention order dated 06.10.2003.Separate Judgments:The Supreme Court, comprising Mr. A.K. Sikri and Mr. R.K. Agrawal, JJ, delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing the issues raised regarding the validity of preventive detention orders when the detainee is already in custody and the necessity for a pending bail application to justify such orders. The Court's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, ultimately leading to the quashing of the detention order in question.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
