MOULANA SHAMSHUNNISA Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the following facts:

(2.) The High Court examined both the contentions and held that there was no violation of Section 8(c) of the COFEPOSA and insofar as the second contention was concerned, the apprehension that if enlarged on bail the detenu could continue with his smuggling activities without even travelling abroad was a possibility, and as such, the detention order was justified. The writ petitions were, accordingly, dismissed.

(3.) Mr. K.K. Mani, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has raised substantially one plea before us. He has pointed 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 v. Union of India and Ors., 1980 4 SCC 531 and Kamlesh kumar Iswardas Patel v. Union of India and Ors., 1995 4 SCC 51. He has pointed out that in the light of the observations in these two judgments, if the detaining authority was oblivious of certain significant facts with regard to the detention that itself was a ground for the quashing of a detention order. In this background, he has submitted that the observations of the detaining authority and the High Court therefore, that in case the detenu was released from jail, he could continue with his smuggling activities within India, notwithstanding that he could not travel abroad as his passport had been seized, was not acceptable as there was no material to justify this conclusion. In this connection, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2002 7 SCC 129 and Gimik Piotr v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2010 1 SCC 609.