2015 (1) TMI 980

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earch on 15.04.2013. He was found to be in possession of 275kgs of narcotics and psychotropic substances; a statement under Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) led to the arrest of the petitioner on 16.04.2013. His statement too was recorded on the date of his arrest i.e. 16.04.2013. Another arrest of one Amit Kumar Singh was made on 02.05.2013 and is alleged that some 950 kgs of banned substances were recovered from his car. The petitioner as well as Amit Kumar Singh were enlarged on bail by the Special Judge, NDPS on 20.07.2013. It is the allegation that he fully cooperated with the investigation and appeared before the DRI and other investigative agencies as and when called upon to do so. In these circ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondly, urged that this Court's power under Article 226 is not circumscribed as by the fact whether a preventive detention order otherwise legally unsustainable is served or not. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14. Learned counsel highlighted that the decision in Deepak Bajaj (supra) had clarified and explained the previous ruling in Union of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 496. In Alka Gadia (supra), the Supreme Court has spelt out five circumstances under which even at the pre-execution stage, discretion can be exercised to examine the legality of detention orders. 5. Learned counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The mainstay of the petitioner's argument is that proceedings under Article 226 should be entertained even at pre-detention stage. Invoking the judgments in Deepak Bajaj (supra), it was argued that the five situations outlined in Alka Gadia (supra) were considered merely illustrative, enabling Courts to do justice and quash detention orders at any stage, on merits. 9. The petitioner's order of detention was apparently confirmed. The Trial Court's order enlarging him on bail was cancelled. He seeks to persuade this Court to set aside the detention order on diverse grounds - all on merits, and commends the Court to entertain this pre-detention challenge proceeding. 10. A three Judge Bench, in Alka Gadia (supra) had outline....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fered with them at the pre-execution stage are necessarily very limited in scope and number, viz., where the courts are prima facie satisfied (i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person, (iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose, (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds or (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. The refusal by the courts to use their extraordinary powers of judicial review to interfere with the detention orders prior to their execution on any other ground does not amount to the abandonment of the said power or to their denial to the proposed detenu, b....