1987 (8) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... They were arrested by the D.R.I. Officers and on 20.4.1986. They were produced before the Duty Magistrate with an application for remand. Pursuant to this the house of the petitioner was searched at Jammu on 22.4.1986. The detention order as stated earlier was actually served on the detenu on 23.4.1987 since which date he is supposed to be in detention on the basis of this detention warrant. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was all along in his house at 3ammu and that on 13.4.1987 he was taken into custody by Jammu Police and was confirmed till 22.4.1987 without the authority of law though on 23.4.1987 the impugned detention warrant was served upon him. In this regard the detenu had moved habeas corpus petition before the High ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the detention order ought to have been executed with utmost urgency unless there were circumstances in existence which prevented the detaining authority from executing the same. 4. This petition is to be allowed essentially on one very important ground which is that the detaining authority has failed to apply his mind inasmuch as the grounds of detention formulated by him are verbatim copy of the remand application submitted to the court by the Revenue Intelligence people. I need not stretch this point too far in this order as in the case of co-detenues in Criminal Writ No. 297 of 1986, Karim Yusuf v. M.L. Wadhawan and others, Crl. Writ No. 303 of 1986, Satya Narain v. Shri M.L. Wadhawan and others, Crl. Writ No. 317 of 1986 and Om Pra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... detention delivered to the petitioner are in no way different than the grounds of detention which were delivered to his co-detenus. That being the case there is hardly any scope for further examination of the matter particularly in view of the fact that in this case also the position is no different, and the grounds of detention barring a change in paragraph is almost the same as given in the remand application. On this ground alone, therefore, the detention has to be quashed. 5. Mr. Harjinder Singh, however, has also raised the question of delay in the execution of the detention order. I have already made a mention of the fact that the detention order admittedly has been executed almost after more than 11-1/2 months and the detention o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner was not found at his place of residence. One does not know when the detention order was sent to the J&K Police for service nor has the court been taken into confidence by the respondents in this regard. The respondents, however, stick to their stand that the delay was caused because the petitioner avoided his arrest. 6. I am not inclined to trust the stand taken by the respondents. The attempt seems to be somehow to justify the delay and not come forward with true facts and the answer is left as vague as possible. More so, after passing the detention order under Section 3 the Act, lays down the mode for execution of the detention order. Section 4 of the COFEPOSA clearly says that the detention order may be executed at any pla....