COFEPOSA detention valid where relied-upon documents were served within time and bail-risk satisfaction was discernible from the grounds.

Under COFEPOSA, contemporaneous service of the grounds of detention and relied upon documents within the statutory time limit satisfies Article 22(5) and Section 3(3); identical same-day delivery is not required, and executive guidelines cannot narrow the statutory scheme. In a detention case involving a person already in custody, the order remains valid if the grounds show awareness of custody, material indicating a real possibility of release on bail, and subjective satisfaction that prejudicial activity may continue on release. On these principles, the High Court's quashing of the detention orders was found unsustainable and the preventive detention orders were restored as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention orders were vitiated because the relied upon documents were not served simultaneously with the detention orders and grounds of detention, and whether there was compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974; (ii) Whether the detention orders were liable to be quashed on the ground that the detaining authority had not expressly recorded the imminent possibility of the detenues being released on bail.

Issue (i): Whether the detention orders were vitiated because the relied upon documents were not served simultaneously with the detention orders and grounds of detention, and whether there was compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 3(3) permits communication of the grounds and supporting material as soon as may be after detention, ordinarily within five days, and in exceptional cases within fifteen days for recorded reasons. The detention orders and grounds were served on the detenues on 18.05.2019, and the relied upon documents were served within the statutory five-day period, though on different dates because the record was voluminous. The governing requirement is contemporaneous service within the statutory time limit, not identical-day delivery. Executive guidelines in the departmental handbook could not override the statute, and the record showed compliance with the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The detention orders were not vitiated on this ground and there was compliance with Article 22(5) and Section 3(3).

Issue (ii): Whether the detention orders were liable to be quashed on the ground that the detaining authority had not expressly recorded the imminent possibility of the detenues being released on bail

Analysis: In the case of a person already in custody, preventive detention is valid where the detaining authority is aware of the custody, has material to believe there is a real possibility of release on bail, and is satisfied that on release the person would likely indulge in prejudicial activity. The grounds showed awareness of custody, prior rejection of bail, the nature and magnitude of the smuggling activity, and the detenues' propensity to continue such conduct. The satisfaction was based on material and formed part of the subjective assessment. The absence of express formulaic words was not fatal where the substance of the required satisfaction was otherwise discernible from the grounds.

Conclusion: The detention orders were not liable to be quashed on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The quashing of the detention orders by the High Court was unsustainable, and the preventive detention orders were restored as valid.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters under COFEPOSA, service of relied upon documents within the statutory period satisfies the constitutional requirement, and a detention order against a person in custody is valid if the grounds disclose awareness of custody and material supporting the authority's subjective satisfaction that release on bail is likely and prejudicial conduct may continue.

---