2010 (12) TMI 1221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etenu, he had been arrested at the Bangalore International Airport after he had been found in possession of 4.35 kgs. of Gold Jewellery which he had not declared to the Customs. He moved an application for bail which was rejected by the Special Court for Economic Offences. He thereafter filed an appeal before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.4858 of 2009) which was ultimately allowed and bail was granted to him on the 5th December, 2009. He was however detained under the COFEPOSA on the 24th January, 2010. He was thereafter produced before the Advisory Board and the Board too confirmed his detention for a period of one year from the date of his detention. A writ petition was there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... out that this court had upheld the vires of several preventive detention statutes primarily on the ground that adequate safeguards for the protection of the rights of a detenu had been provided while noticing that smuggling activities by individuals was a matter of deep concern to India and its economy, but if the procedural safeguards were in any manner not observed, the detention order would fail. The learned counsel has in this connection relied on the observations made by this Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1980 (4) SCC 531] and Kamleshkumar Iswardas Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1995 (4) SCC 51]. He has pointed out that in the light of the observations in these two judgments, if the detaining authority ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n on the part of the detaining authority. These findings are sufficient to invalidate the impugned detention order and it is not necessary to consider the other issues raised by the appellant." This opinion has been further fortified by this court in Gimik Piotr's case (supra). In para 32, it has been held as under : "32. In the present case, the detention order was passed under Section 3(1) (i) of COFEPOSA. The Customs Department has retained the passport of detenu. The likelihood of the appellant indulging in smuggling activities was effectively foreclosed. As observed by this Court in Rajesh Gulati case that the contention that despite the absence of a passport, the appellant could or would be able to continue his activities is based on....